Sitting of 13 July 1857

MINUTE.
NEW WRIT.—For the City of Oxford, v. Charles Neate, esq., void Election.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Justices and Police Force (Dublin); Revising Barristers (Dublin).

GALWAY TOWN ELECTION—REPORT.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That Anthony O'Flaherty, esquire, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and County of the Town of Galway:
That the last Election for the said Town and County of the Town of Galway, so far as regards the Return of the said Anthony O'Flaherty, esquire, is a void Election.
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

LAMBETH ELECTION—REPORT.
MR. INGHAM reported from the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter of the Petition of Patteson Nickalls and Robert Henry Bristowe, complaining, of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Lambeth; That Joseph Tredre had been duly summoned by the Warrant of the Speaker of the House of Commons to appear before the said Committee, and that the said Joseph Tredre had disobeyed the said Warrant; that such a disobedience having been satisfactorily proved to the Committee on. Saturday the 11th day of this July instant, and the House not being then sitting, by the direction of the Committee he had, by a Warrant under his hand, required the Serjeant at Arms to take the said Joseph Tredre into custody; and the Serjeant

1367
had informed the Committee that he had not succeeded in apprehending the said John Tredre.
Resolved, That John Tredre, having been duly summoned by the Speaker's Warrant to attend the said Committee, and having disobeyed such Warrant, and not having appeared before the said Committee, has been guilty of contempt and of a Breach of the Privileges of this House.
Ordered, That John Tredre having been guilty of contempt, and of a Breach of the Privileges of this House, be for his said offence taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant accordingly.

PROPERTY TAX UPON OFFICERS' QUARTERS.—QUESTION.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the Secretary of State for War has issued an Order, dated the 30th of May, 1857, directing Field Officers of Artillery, occupying field officers' quarters, to pay property-tax for those quarters?
SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that an Order to the effect stated by the hon. and gallant Member had been issued, but that it did not rest with the War Department to decide anything upon the subject, inasmuch as it was prescribed by Schedule A of the Property-tax Act that all houses belonging to Her Majesty, excepting the Royal Palaces, should be assessed to the property-tax, which was to be paid by the occupier.

THE INDIAN MUTINY.—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: There are such serious and, in some respects, such contradictory statements respecting the information contained in the last arrivals from India, that I think it would be greatly for the convenience of the House if Her Majesty's Government would make some authentic statement of the intelligence which they have received on this subject. Besides inviting the noble Lord at the head of the Government to make that statement I would also ask him whether it is his intention to lay any papers connected with the recent transactions in India upon the table of the House?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot disguise that the accounts which have gone
1368
forth to the public of the intelligence recently received from India are in some degree contradictory, and, therefore, I am not surprised that they should have led to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me, but I am only able to state in reply that all the information which Her Majesty's Government have received is that which has been communicated to them by telegraph messages, first from Cagliari and then from Marseilles, the messages conveying, although in somewhat different words, very nearly the same information. That information is as much known to the public as it is to Her Majesty's Government, and until the mails, which I believe may be expected to-night or to-morrow, arrive from Marseilles, we shall have nothing additional to communicate. The general outline of the intelligence which we have received is, in the first place, that we have had the misfortune to lose the Commander in Chief; in the next place, that the disaffection which existed only in a few regiments, according to the former accounts, appears to have spread to a greater extent among the Bengal army; and that a large number of the Bengal troops have, as stated in the despatch, "disappeared." From that I presume that they have returned to their homes, but that is the expression used, and no further information is given. On the other hand, the native troops which remained faithful to-their allegiance, together with some British forces, have had an encounter with the mutineers under the walls of Delhi. That encounter is stated to have resulted in the complete success of Her Majesty's toops—twenty-six pieces of cannon were taken, and the mutineers were compelled to seek refuge within the walls of the town. The walls of Delhi, as the House is no doubt aware, are not regular fortifications, but are merely upright walls, not possessing any of the defences which are usual in the case of fortifications. Further, it was expected when the intelligence left, that the town would be immediately assaulted; but, of course, the Government can know nothing of the result of that assault. When the despatches arrive we shall certainly be ready to lay before Parliament such portions of the communications as may be calculated to give to the House and to the public the fullest obtainable information as to the course of recent events. It may easily be conceived that in these despatches, when

1369
they arrive, there may be many circumstances, reasonings, and explanations which, from their very nature, it would not be desirable for the advantage of the public service to communicate; but whatever may be essential in order to afford full information as to what has occurred shall be presented; because, although not usual in matters of this sort, Her Majesty's Government think that this is a case in which the ordinary custom should be departed from, and that exact information should be afforded both to Parliament and to the country with respect to the actual position of affairs in India.
MR. DISRAELI: My question with respect to the production of papers referred rather to despatches already received by the Government before the absolute occurrence of these events, and which, perhaps, intimated their probable occurrence, than to the despatches referred to by the noble Lord. I do not wish to limit my inquiry merely to the production of papers giving only a narrative of the events which have occurred during the last few weeks. I wish now, however, to ask a direct question of the noble Lord, involving a matter of much importance in connection with the Persian war and the occupation of the city of Herat. Has the noble Lord received any information recently from that city to the effect that the person nominated as the Governor of Herat has sworn allegiance to the Shah of Persia; that the Shah has accepted that allegiance, and empowered him to coin money, such transactions being at variance with the treaty lately laid before Parliament?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In regard to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to select from the correspondence connected with the events in India that which appears well calculated to give the fullest information to Parliament without compromising the public service. If further information should be desired, it would be for those who think further information necessary to state their reasons for that belief. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the Government has received no information with reference to Herat tending to confirm the report to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. He is aware that by the treaty the Persians were to evacuate Herat within a certain time, and we were to send
1370
an agent to that city to see that the evacuation was complete. That agent, according to the last accounts, had not yet arrived there; but when he does arrive he will of course make his report on the state of things at Herat.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish to put another question to the noble Lord respecting the events in India. I have seen in a public newspaper that in the encounter before Delhi the mutineers mustered a force of 7,000 men, and that the British force amounted to only 1,800 men, consisting partly of Sepoys, and the statement went on to the effect that with this force of 1,800 men the attack on Delhi was to be carried into effect. I wish to know whether there is anything in the telegraphic despatch received by the Government to justify that statement?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The telegraphic message has given the Government no details of that encounter. The despatch simply states that an encounter had taken place under the walk of Delhi, and that twenty-six guns had been taken, and that Her Majesty's troops had taken possession of the heights round the city. I Perhaps, though no question on the point has been put to me, the House will give me permission to state the general outline of what the Government have thought it right to do. Immediately on the receipt of the information I have just described steps were taken by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Indian department in conjunction with my noble Friend at the head of the War Department, and his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief here, to select an officer to go out to India to take the place of General Anson. The offer was made to Sir Colin Campbell, who accepted it. Upon being asked when he would be able to start, the gallant officer, with his ordinary promptitude, replied "To-morrow;" and accordingly, the offer having been made on Saturday, he was off by the train yesterday evening. A telegraphic despatch was sent to Marseilles to stop the steamer which is to take the mail, which left London on Saturday night, until the arrival of Sir Colin Campbell, who, therefore, would not lose a single hour in reaching his destination. The House is aware that 14,000 men were under orders to go out to India before the arrival of the recent intelligence. Additional troops will now be sent out, and the House may rest assured that the Govern-

1371
ment will take all the steps necessary to meet the emergency. I should add that Lord Canning, the Governor General of India, has, in the meantime, on his own responsibility, done that which has been entirely approved of by the Government. He wrote to Lord Elgin, whom he thought his despatches would find at Ceylon, to request that he might divert for the Indian service a part of the force now on its way to China. I have no doubt that those despatches have reached. Lord Elgin, and that the request will be complied with, and the Government have made such arrangements with respect to China that, even if those troops should be for a time diverted from their original destination, still there would be found on the China station ample means to carry on the operations there.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he wished to inquire whether the Government were aware that it had been reported that Sir Patrick Grant had been appointed to the command of the forces by the Indian Government.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We really know nothing but what I have already stated. AH our information comes by telegraph, and it often happens that private-persons know, or pretend to know, more than the Government.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he would beg to inquire whether any additional reinforcements were going out to India from this country, or whether the reinforcements were to be confined to those originally destined for China, and which Lord Canning would intercept at Ceylon.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The reinforcements certainly are not confined to the troops on their way to China. Fourteen thousand men were under orders for India, and would have embarked independent of the news just arrived; but the Government think it their duty to despatch as early as possible a considerable force in addition. Of course means must be taken by recruiting to supply the gap which will be thereby made in the forces at home.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that after the announcement just made by the noble Lord, perhaps it would be convenient for the House to know that he should not now bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, to call the attention of the House to the inadequacy of the reinforcements proposed to be sent to India.

SAVINGS BANK BILL—QUESTION.
MR. J. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government intended to proceed with the Savings Bank Bill this Session?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he saw no prospect of proceeding with the Bill in the course of the night or even the week. He would state as soon as possible whether he saw any prospect of proceeding with the Measure during the present Session.

VACCINATION—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in any Bill to amend the law with respect to Vaccination this Session?
MR. COWPERsaid, the President of the Board of Health had prepared a Bill on the subject, but delayed presenting it until the Bill now before the House respecting the transfer of the powers of that Board should pass. It would then be brought in if the period of the Session would allow of that course.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid that an important paper on the subject had lately been printed, and was lying in the Vote Office. Had the Government any objection to distribute that paper to Members.
MR. COWPERsaid, he believed that the paper in question was one of great interest and of remarkable research; but according to the rules of the House it was not circulated to Members, but was only given to those who applied for it at the Vote Office.

THE PERSIAN AND CHINESE ESTIMATES.

  NOTICE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERgave notice that on Thursday next in Committee of Supply he would move the Estimates for the expenses of the war with Persia and of the hostilities with China.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before moving in Committee of Supply for a Vote of £500,000 for the Persian Expedition, he would lay on the Table of the House the Estimate of the East India Company, presented to the Government last February,

  1373
  and containing their rough calculation of the entire cost of the Persian war to December next; and also the Correspondence which had taken place between the East India Company and Her Majesty's Government on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the correspondence relative to the Estimate had already been laid on the Table. That Estimate was made when the war was still unfinished, and when the total amount of the expense was uncertain. He should be in a condition on Thursday to lay on the table the Estimate of the East India Company with respect to the total expense of the war. He thought that would be more satisfactory than to communicate one that had been formed on imperfect knowledge.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet would lay the Estimate referred to on the table before the discussion?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should object to lay on the table the first Estimate of the East India Company as to what the expense would probably be. He would lay on the table the Estimate which he meant to move.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAM: When will that Estimate be laid on the Table?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: To-morrow.

  INDIAN OFFICERS—QUESTION.
  MR. NOELsaid, he would beg leave to repeat the question he had put on a previous occasion, whether those officers who were on leave, but were, before the expiration of their furlough, ordered out to India would be obliged to go out at their own expense or at the expense of the Government?
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, the question of making an allowance in aid of their expenses to officers in the service of the East India Company who were on leave of absence in this country, and had been ordered to rejoin their regiments, was at present the subject of communication between the Board of Control and the War Department, but that, as soon as a decision was arrived at, no time should be lost in announcing it to Parliament.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY—QUESTION.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Trea-
  1374
  sury to explain the meaning of his letter to the Secretary at War, dated 2nd July, 1857, relative to the completion of the works of the Ordnance Survey now in progress on the 25-inch scale.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he had received From Colonel James the following explanation of the interpretation put by him upon the Vote of the House with reference to the completion of the works of the Ordnance survey.
  "I should complete the plans of the cultivated districts of those counties which are in progress on the 25-inch scale, and draw the plans of those counties which, are not in progress on the 6-inch scale only. That is, I should complete on the the 25-inch scale the plans of the cultivated districts of Northumberland, Westmoreland, Roxburghshire, and Lanarkshire, and the other counties now actually in progress on that scale, as we have completed the plans of Durham and Linlithgowshire; but should construct on the 6-inch scale only the plans of Cumberland, and the other counties, in which the field survey has not been commenced, on the 25-inch scale."
  He (Mr. Wilson) could only add, that the Government were most anxious to carry into effect the wishes of the House on this subject.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he would beg to ask what was the meaning of the phrase "in progress," in Colonel James's communication? Would works which had only just been commenced be considered as "in progress"?
  MR. WILSONsaid, he understood from Colonel James's note, that the expression applied to all those counties in which the survey had already been commenced upon, the 25-inch scale.

THE INDIAN MUTINY.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: The Noble Lord at the Head of the Government having distinctly acquainted the House with the number of troops he proposes, under the existing state of India to despatch there from this country, I wish to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty, looking to the large reserve of one steam navy, whether it is the intention of the Board of Admiralty to make use of any of the screw line-of-battle ships available for the conveyance of those troops to the East Indies.
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied that the Admiralty had reason to believe that the troops could be conveyed to their destination more conveniently and rapidly by the employment of hired transports.

NATIONAL ART COLLECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Education whether, as it appears from the Returns laid before this House that in the case of some of our National Collections of objects of art, science, and historical interest, as well as in the case of civil and religious edifices and monuments (all maintained or assisted by the Money Votes of Parliament), the public have the benefit of instruction by means of descriptive labels affixed or appended to such objects, without incurring the cost of a catalogue, while in the case of other such collections, edifices, and monuments (similarly supported by public money) no such advantage is given to the public, whether measures will be taken for extending the system of labelling generally for the benefit of the public?
  MR. COWPERin reply said, that the Government had been most anxious to carry out the object to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the case of all museums and collections of objects of art, science, and natural products. At the British Museum, at the Kensington Museum, and at other similar institutions, all the articles exhibited were described in a short and condensed manner; and in the case of the Turner collection, not only were the subjects of the various paintings described, but the date at which they were painted was also given—an arrangement which he considered afforded great assistance to students.

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.

  MOTION.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  LORD ELCHO,in rising to propose the Motion of which he had given notice with reference to the Ordnance Survey, observed that circumstances of a private and very painful nature, connected with the intelligence just received from India, would have induced him to forbear from bringing this subject under the attention of the House, were it not that this was the only opportunity of which he should be able to avail himself for eliciting their opinion on a question which he regarded as of great importance. He had been told that in again calling attention to the subject of
  1376
  the ordnance survey he would only be wasting the time of the House, but he could not think he was open to such a charge when he asked hon. Gentlemen to consider whether something like £2,000,000 of the public money was expended profitably or unprofitably. He did not propose to reopen the question of the 25-inch scale, as he bowed to the decision at which the House of Commons had arrived on that subject. He believed, however, that that decision was in a great measure attributable to the general misconception which existed on the subject, and to the idea that this was exclusively a Scotch question, or, as it had been termed, "a Scotch job." With regard to its being "a Scotch job," he begged to say that whatever steps might have been taken in Scotland since the survey upon the 25-inch scale had been in progress, a similar course had been adopted in the northern counties of England. The fact was, that the survey had proceeded in the two countries pari passu. What was the position of the survey when the House arrived at its decision? In the northern portion of England, and throughout Scotland, the Ordnance had made surveys, and had published maps of the cultivated rural districts upon the scale of 25 inches to the mile; and they were also publishing a 6-inch map, and a 1-inch map of the whole country. The large towns, the population of which exceeded 4,000, were surveyed upon a 10 feet scale. When the scale for the survey of the rural districts was raised from 6 inches to 25 inches, the scale for the survey of towns was raised from 5 feet to 10 feet; and it might have been thought that when the country survey was reduced from 25 inches to 6 inches, the town survey would also have been reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet; but no change had hitherto been made. He was, however, quite willing that towns should enjoy the advantage of a really good practical survey, which would be afforded by a 10-inch scale. He found, from the letters of the Secretary at War, that the survey was in progress on the 25-inch scale in three counties in the north of England—Northumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham— and in nine counties in Scotland, including Renfrew, Ayr, Dumfries, and Peebles; and in those counties of Scotland would be found the large proportion of the cultivated districts of that country. The total estimate for the survey of Scotland, conducted in the way he had described, after mak-

  1377
  ing a deduction in respect of the work already done, amounted to £624,000; and as regarded Scotland the only saving effected by the change would be about three farthings an acre, or £50,000 in the aggregate. Again, in the counties which had been begun in the north of England the only saving would be £5,000. The total saving, therefore, would amount to £55,000. But there were considerations why that sum should be reduced by at least £25,000, so that the actual saving would be something like £30,000, or rather under that sum. He admitted, however, that the unsurveyed portions of the two countries must be taken into account, and that whatever the House had done with respect to the north of England and Scotland, they must be prepared to do in the south of England. What would be the saving effected on the survey of the whole of Great Britain? Why, somewhere about £230,000, which appeared to him a very trifling one. But they had further to consider whether, in effecting that saving, they were adopting a really useful scale. It often happened that the economical votes of the House proved the most extravagant in the end. His desire, however, was not that the House should at once decide the matter, but that it should come to the conclusion that further inquiry was needed. He might remind the House that the 6-inch scale originated in Ireland in 1824, on the Motion for a Committee to report on that question made by Mr. Spring Rice, now Lord Monteagle. That Committee, after referring to the various divisions and subdivisions of land in Ireland, such as town-lands, ploughlands, colps, gneeves, cartrons, tates, bullibos, bullibellos, horsemen, beds, cows' feet, and cows' toes, came to the conclusion that the survey of that country should be conducted on such a scale as to admit of an accurate delineation on the map of the town boundaries, for the purpose of a general valuation for local purposes, and that that scale should be 6 inches to the English mile. They stated that "a survey by townlands appeared to be the rational medium between a baronial or parochial and field survey, and that the best scale for effecting the intended survey would be that of 6 inches to the English mile, adding that "a survey of 6 inches to the mile might be applied to various purposes of private utility." It was, therefore, for special purposes in Ireland that that scale was adopted—namely, for a properly purpose, and for
  1378
  aiding the Irish in making local assessments. Now, they had to consider whether such a scale as that was or was not a proper scale for a property survey in England and Scotland. When he used the word "property" survey, he did not mean a survey of a gentleman's property for private purposes, but a survey for registration and other public purposes—one, in fact, which should fulfil all those national objects for which such a survey should be undertaken. That brought him to the Committee of 1851, appointed to consider the survey of Scotland. He had heard complaints made—chiefly by Irish Members—as to the constitution of that Committee, that the Scotch had shown, very little delicacy in the matter, in that the majority of Members who served upon it were Scotchmen. Now, he found that the Irish Members had had three Committees appointed in connection with the question of an Ordnance Survey. The first was in 1824, which consisted of twenty-one Members. Lord Monteagle being Chairman, of whom one was a Scotchman, five were Englishmen—one of the latter being the Irish Secretary—and fifteen were Irish. In 1846 there was another Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the then state of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland and on the works which would be required for its completion. That Committee, of whom Sir Denham Norreys was Chairman, consisted of fifteen Members, of whom one was a Scotchman, two were Englishmen—one being the Irish Secretary and the other the Clerk of the Ordnance—and twelve were Irishmen. Mr. Barry Baldwin was subsequently added to the Committee, a name which he (Lord Elcho) suspected was that of an Irish gentleman, though he sat for an English borough. Again, in 1853, a Committee was appointed to consider and report upon the details of the reduced map of Ireland then in course of publication; and that Committee consisted of thirteen Members, of whom, while there was not a single Scotchman, one was an Englishman and twelve were Irish, Sir Denham Norreys being again Chairman. He (Lord Elcho) therefore trusted, after that, that the House would hear no more from any hon. Member from across St. Georges's Channel as to the indelicacy of the Scotch in the constitution of any Committee of that House. He would revert to the Committee of 1851, which was appointed chiefly on account of

  1379
  the delay which had occurred in the survey of Scotland. What had that Committee done? They examined several persons both for and against the 6-inch scale, and the conclusions they came to were:—
  "That the 6-inch scale be abandoned. It is, evident that if the 6-inch scale were abandoned a very large saving would be effected, and the time necessary for the completion of the map (1 inch) greatly shortened. Your Committee, therefore, recommend the abandonment of the 6-inch scale as being, generally speaking, inapplicable to Scotland".
  What applied to Scotland applied equally to England, either in the north or in the south. The Committee added, that undoubtedly the plans would be of some value to proprietors in the valuation of their estates. The Scotch Members decided, notwithstanding, against the 6-inch scale, upon the ground that they did not think the advantages to the public would be proportionate to the cost to the country. All the objections which could be taken to the 25-inch scale, on account of size, applied equally to the 6-inch scale, because the moment they abandoned the 1-inch scale they adopted the principle of a plan, and not of a map. It appeared in evidence before the Committee that a map of Scotland on the 6-inch scale would be 216 feet long by 120 feet broad. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow (Sir Denham Norreys) said he considered a large map a great evil, and that the thing was to get as small a map as possible. In the Committee of 1846, when the hon. Baronet was very anxious to get a 1-inch map, he denied as far as possible the utility of a 6-inch map. When Mr. Griffith was under examination Sir R. Ferguson asked, "Is it likely there would be any room large enough to hold the map of a very large county upon the 6-inch scale?" The answer was, "It would require a very large room indeed. In the county of Cork I do not suppose they have any room large enough to hold the map of the county." The hon. Baronet who was Chairman of the Committee was not satisfied, and he put this further question:—
  "Even if there were such a room, would it be of any practical utility from the impossibility of the eye catching the names and lines upon it?" The answer was, "No eye could take in two distant points in one view with sufficient clearness."
  The objection, therefore, of the hon. Baronet to the 25-inch scale applied equally to the 6-inch scale. In either case it was not of much value, for no one ever thought of putting the maps together; they were,
  1380
  as every hon. Gentleman well knew, bound up in separate parts. Still it seemed to afford strong reason for inquiry, but his reasons for inquiry were not exhausted. He came next to the correspondence upon the scales which was published in 1854, and which resulted in the circular from the Treasury, to which he had on several occasions alluded. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford being then Chancellor of the Exchequer, determined to endeavour to ascertain what would be the best scale, if there were to be a large map, for the survey of England and Scotland, and with that view sent out upwards of 300 circulars to public bodies, engineers, surveyors, valuers, land agents, and others whose opinions were entitled to consideration. The replies returned were in favour of the 6-inch scale 32, in favour of the larger scale 120. He begged to call attention to the names of some of the public bodies who condemned the 6-inch and were favourable to a larger scale. Those names included the Registrar General, Copyhold, Enclosure, and Tithe Commissioners, the President of the Geological Society, the President of the Geographical Society, the Cathedral Commission, Society for Promoting the Amendment of the Law, Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Poor Law Board, Highland and Agricultural Society, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Belper), the Commissioner of Woods (Mr. Gore), the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor (Scotland), the General Board of Health, the Statistical Society, the Statistical Conference (held at Brussels, 1853, Mr. Farr deputed by Government), Sir H. De La Beche, Messrs. Brunel, Stephenson, and Locke, Mr. Vignoles, Colonel Dawson (engineer to the Tithe, &c. Commission), Lord Ross, Lord Wrottesley, Lord Beaumont, Mr. Coulson, Mr. Bellenden Ker (Titles Registration Commissioners), and Mr. Warburton. The substance of those replies supported the view that, however applicable the 6-inch scale might be to the large properties, large counties, large estates, and large holdings, when they came to smaller divisions, such as the 40 s. freeholders in England and the £10 franchise in Scotland, they must have recourse to a larger scale. Mr. Griffith, who was engaged in the valuation of Ireland, was obliged to enlarge the 6-inch maps when he came to the smaller parishes and parishes where the division of property was

  1381
  more minute. The same had been the result in the Encumbered Estates Court. Colonel Dawson, the engineer to the Tithe Commission, stated that—
  "For rating purposes in England and for valuation every separate parcel of land or tenement, however small, is required to be accurately drawn upon the plan, and to have marked within its limits a reference number to an accompanying terrier; those numbers consisting very commonly of three or four figures, and possibly of five or six. It is, moreover, indispensably requisite that the exact acreage, as for buying and selling, should be obtained by admeasurement within the limits of each parcel or tenement upon the plan; and no surveyor, valuer, land agent, or other person employed in the management and transfer of land in England would admit the sufficiency of a smaller scale than twenty inches to the mile for ascertaining' the areas with the degree of minuteness required."
  Mr. Griffith, in the correspondence of 1854, said:—
  "In making the tenement valuation, I find the 6-inch scale sufficient for determining the area of tenements not less than one acre, measuring from the paper; when the area is less than one acre, its contents is ascertained by measurement in the field."
  For valuation purposes, for the transfer of property, for the registration of assurances, it was important that they should be able to measure the area on the paper without reference to the property, and that the map should be of a size to admit of five or six figures of reference being inserted and accurately read. The blue-book was full of evidence given by persons most conversant with the subject, and tending uniformly to show that in England and Scotland a survey should be made much larger than that of six inches to the mile. The Board of Supervision for the Relief of the Poor in Scotland, of which Sir J. M' Neil was the able head, expressed an opinion that it was most important for valuation purposes, and the purposes of the board, that there should be maps of from twenty to twenty-six inches to the mile. Since the subject had been under discussion, a Valuation Act for Scotland had passed, and he believed the Lord Advocate would confirm his statement, that for the purposes of that Act such maps would be extremely valuable. The head of the Poor Law Board gave evidence to the same effect. They were empowered to order maps to be made. They were unable to avail themselves of the 6-inch maps, and when they ordered any, they ordered them on the larger scale. It was the same with the Tithe, Enclosure, and Copyhold Commissioners. From the Commissioners of Woods they had instances of the
  1382
  disadvantages of not possessing a plan sufficiently large. There was a Crown estate at the mouth of the Humber. They could make no use of a 6-inch plan, which was in existence in Yorkshire, and had to survey upon the larger scale. The same was the case with regard to the drainage of Windsor Park. He could keep the House for a week listening to extracts to prove that in England and Scotland for valuation purposes it would be advantageous to have a map much larger than six inches to the mile. In the blue-book would also be found the strongest evidence from Mr. Bellenden Ker, and the other authorities who had been consulted, that it was essential, with reference to the transfer of property and the registration of assurances, there should be a larger map than one of that size. He had delayed the House at such length because he wished it to feel that the decision to which it came the other day upset the 25-inch scale, which would have been perfect for all purposes where a map or plan could ever be used, and that if no further inquiry were instituted the survey of the rural districts would proceed upon the 6-inch scale. He did not deny that the 6-inch scale had its merits. It had succeeded in Ireland for the purposes to which it was applied in that country, and, as the son of a landed proprietor in the Lothians, where all the divisions were large, it would be more convenient to him to have a plan of his estate upon that scale than upon any other. But when they came to great national purposes—such as valuations, registration, and transfer of property—they must adopt a larger scale than six inches to the mile if they wished to make the survey useful. He could understand the views of those who said that a 1-inch map was all that the nation should be required to make. He did not deny the beauty and advantages of such a map; but they ought to bear in mind that the principle of a property survey—and by that term he meant a survey for great public purposes,—was adopted in Ireland in 1824, and that it was extended to England and Scotland in 1840, when it was resolved to proceed upon the 6-inch scale. Moreover, such an amount of work had been done upon a larger scale than one inch to the mile, and the advantages of the enlarged scale were so fully appreciated by the public that he believed it impossible to revert to a 1-inch map alone. The Government of Lord John Russell tried to do

  1383
  so in 1851, but the administration of Lord Derby, which succeeded, found that they could not abide by the decision of their predecessors, and they were obliged to depart from it in consequence of the memorials they received from all parts of the country praying for a larger scale. In the same manner the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen found it impossible to revert to the 1-inch scale. Upon his own suggestion— for at that time he held an office in the Treasury—a circular was sent to all the most competent authorities in Great Britain with a view of ascertaining what, in their opinion, was the best scale, and the result he had already detailed to the House. So great and universal, indeed, was the demand for large plans, that no Government could take their stand upon a 1-inch map alone; and, seeing that the difference of cost between the 6-inch scale and the 25-inch scale was a mere trifle—something like three farthings an acre in the cultivated districts, the total difference upon the whole of England and Scotland being £230,000, and upon the unsurveyed districts of the north of England and Scotland only £30,000—he thought it would be unwise economy not to spend a little more in order to get a really useful map. England was not so poor that it could not afford to spend £230,000—spread, if they pleased, over ten or twenty years—upon a map which, in the opinion of all the most competent authorities whom the Treasury had consulted, was essential, if they wished to have a map practically useful for the national purposes of the valuation and registration of property. At the same time, England was not rich enough to spend £2,000,000 (which would be the cost of the 6-inch map for the whole of England and Scotland) for a map which might to a certain extend be useful, but which the authorities united in declaring would not be sufficiently large for any practical purpose. He did not ask the House to negative the 6-inch scale. He did not, indeed, submit any proposition with respect to scales at all. That was not a question for the House to decide, because it was of a technical, scientific, and practical nature, and as such the Treasury, feeling its incompetence, had been obliged to refer it to acknowledged authorities. He warned them not to be led away by professional opinions which might be given in that House. There had always been a jealousy on the part of the civil engineers towards the Ordnance with respect to this question
  1384
  of survey. The civil surveyors had uniformly endeavoured to get the work into their own hands, and were naturally vexed that the Ordnance-office should be allowed to proceed with it. But this great national work was undertaken by the Government corps of engineers. Commenced in the last century it had proceeded gradually and slowly over the length and breadth of England under the same superintendence. The civil engineers were naturally anxious that the survey should be limited to as small a scale as possible, because the more that was left undone the more would remain for them to do. Mr. Jones, the Cathedral Commissioner, in his reply to the Treasury circular, said that he was in favour of a map upon the scale of 26⅔ inches to the mile, that being the scale which the civil engineers always adopted, though it would appear that they locked up their maps in order that they might be employed to make fresh surveys upon different scales. Any professional opinion, therefore, which might be given upon this question must be taken cum grano salis. He trusted he had said sufficient to induce the House not to take any hasty or irrevocable step with respect to the scale or scales upon which the survey should be made. The question was already in a state of great confusion, and he believed that by referring it to a fair, impartial, and competent tribunal, they would adopt the only practical issue out of their difficulties. The most fair and competent tribunal to which it could be referred would be a Royal Commission properly constituted. Do not let a single Scotchman be upon the Commission, but let it consist of such men as his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, the hon. Member for Sheffield, the hon. Member for West Surrey; or, in the other House, Lord Eversley, Lord Belper, Lord Rosse, and Lord Wrottesley. It would be only fair to exclude civil engineers, but the Commission ought to have the services of some scientific man, such as the Astronomer Royal. If the Commission were properly constituted he had no doubt that the inquiry would be a fair and searching one; and in that event he would be content never to open his lips again upon this subject, but to abide by the decision of the Commissioners.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the present position of the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain, the Survey on the six-inch Scale ought not to be proceeded with without further inquiry; and this House is of

  1385
  opinion, that an humble Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject of the National Survey, and report upon the Scale or Scales on which it should be made and published," instead thereof.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My noble Friend has thrown out challenges right and left. He has challenged the Irish Members, he has challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, he has challenged the civil engineers who are Members of this House. Now, I hope none of these parties will accept the challenge of the noble Lord. It is no disparagement to the courage of any man that when he is engaged in the performance of public duties, or is about to be called upon to do so, he should, for the moment at least, decline any private challenge that might be tendered him. We are met this night to enter upon the performance of a public duty far more important than any discussion upon the 25-inch scale, the 6-inch scale, or the 1-inch scale. We are anxious to go into Committee of Supply in order to determine the expenditure of the country, and really I do hope that we shall not have a renewal of the discussion; about the 25-inch or any other scale, which, if once begun, would probably occupy the whole night. I hope the House will be satisfied with having indulged my noble Friend with what, no doubt, was his real object, to vindicate the character of his countrymen from any charge of selfishness, or that their desire for the larger survey arose from other motives than those which should guide all public men in their advocacy of public measures. He has also stated again, in great detail, the reasons which he gave the other evening in support of his own opinions, and I am bound to say that in many of them I agree with him, for the House will excuse me for saying that I believe the decision it arrived at the other evening was a wrong one. But, nevertheless, there is that decision, and whether it was based upon full examination and careful deliberation, or founded upon prejudice and superficial impressions, it is not for me to inquire. The House determined by a majority that the 25-inch survey should not be continued or published. That decision we adopted, and by it we are bound to abide. My noble Friend purposes, with a view to the reversal of that decision and the re-establishment
  1386
  of the 25-inch scale of survey, that all surveys of any kind should be at once stopped, the officers and men engaged upon them should be paralyzed until a Commission, which he suggests, shall have reported to the Government, and the Government shall have laid the Report before this House in the next Session. By that proceeding many months would be wasted, all the persons now engaged in these surveys must be kept in idleness at a great expense or be discharged; and in the latter case, it would be found necessary, when the work was recommenced, to reorganize the staff, at great cost and labour, and after all, with a great risk of inconvenience, from the ignorance of the persons employed. It is impossible, therefore, for me to agree with the Resolution proposed by my noble Friend—that is, as to the first part of it. If he will consent to strike out all the first portion of the Resolution, and, not to-night, but on some future occasion, would propose a simple address to the Crown to appoint a Commission to inquire into this matter, I should have no objection to offer to such a proposal. Every one must admit there have been so many changes of decision, so many plans adopted and abandoned, perhaps I may be permitted to add, so much tergiversation upon the question of these surveys, that it may be desirable to have a Commission properly constituted to inquire into the whole matter, and to endeavour to educe some order out of this seeming chaos. However that may be, it would be highly inexpedient to stop all proceedings until the Report of that Commission shall have been read, and still more inexpedient would it be to raise at this time a debate upon these surveys, which would certainly entail the loss of this night, as far as the Committee of Supply is concerned. I entreat the House, therefore, not to be drawn into a discussion, however tempting the occasion may be, but hope they will allow this matter to drop for the present, and proceed at once with the business of the evening.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he believed his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) would be much mistaken if he suffered himself to think that the House was prepared to sanction the suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) towards the close of his address. All the inconvenience which the noble Lord had pointed out as likely to follow from the adoption of the course proposed by his noble Friend must

  1387
  inevitably be produced by the adoption of that recommended by the noble Lord himself; and he (Lord J. Manners) rose for the purpose of stating, that upon that, or upon any other occasion, he should feel it his duty to oppose any attempt to reverse the decision at which the House had arrived the other evening in reference to that question.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSobserved, he was quite prepared to accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and to allow the challenge of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire to pass without notice, if the Government would declare that no Commission should issue upon this subject during the present Session. He must, however, be allowed to say, that any Commission nominated by Lord Panmure could only be intended as an evasion of the decision arrived at by the House on a former evening.
  MR. BAILLIEwished to know whether he had correctly understood an answer which had been given that evening by the Secretary for the Treasury, that whenever the engineers had commenced the survey of any county on the 25-inch scale, no matter how small the commencement had been, the survey of that county should be proceeded with on the same scale.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he believed the Ordnance Department had put an erroneous construction on the division of the House the other evening. The opinion entertained at the Treasury upon the subject was, that the 25-inch survey might be completed in those districts in which it had previously been commenced, but that it should not be adopted in any portions of the counties in which those districts were situated; and that opinion would be communicated by the Treasury to the Ordnance Department.
  MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, he thought there could be no doubt the object of the Motion was to reverse the decision to which the House had come on a former evening. If he was to understand that the Government intended to oppose that Motion he would not say one word; but if it was intended that hereafter the same Motion was to be brought forward without the same opportunity of resisting it that existed now, he should feel inclined to go on with the discussion at once.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: We have moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair, in order that the House may go into Com-
  1388
  mittee of Supply. My noble Friend (Lord Elcho) has moved his Resolution as an. Amendment to that Motion. The Government support the original question. If my noble Friend should on some future occasion think fit to renew his Motion in its present or in a modified shape, of course ample opportunity will be afforded to all hon. members to state their objections.
  LORD ELCHO: The course I propose to take now is to withdraw my Resolution for the present, and to bring it forward on some future occasion. [Loud cries of "No!"]
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, as the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had occupied one hour of the time of the House in introducing his Resolution, it was only fair that he should now submit it to the House.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee; Mr. FitzRoy in the Chair.
  (1.) £109,842. Superannuations.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that these allowances were proposed to be granted under the Act of Parliament, but several of them were not in accordance with the scale laid down by it. He thought, moreover, that the system was radically wrong, as those who enjoyed a long life after their retirement, received much larger sums than the nature of their services deserved. He found from the papers that these instances were by no means uncommon; amongst others he might mention that one gentleman had retired over twenty years ago on the ground of ill-health, and was still drawing his retired allowance. He would suggest that a capital sum should be given instead of a pension: it would be a better provision for his family if an officer died soon after his retirement.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the present scale of superannuation pensions was founded on an Act of Parliament; and if the system of paying sums down were adopted, he feared there would be many cases in which public servants would spend the money thus given them upon their retirement, and would be thrown upon the public bounty after all. He would also state that the cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman were not cases which had occurred under the ordinary course of super-

  1389
  annuation, but cases in which the parties had retired for purposes of economy at the desire of the Government.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that of this enormous amount of retiring allowances, a large proportion was paid by way of compensation for abolished offices. Now, why were these persons not appointed to other departments of the service upon the abolition of their offices? A large saving would be effected by adopting this system. In many instances retiring allowances were granted to persons who had spent but a few years in the public service, and it did seem as though this large expenditure was saddled upon the public to a great extent for purposes of patronage. One instance he would mention in which an individual was paid £700 a year as a retiring allowance in 1820—thirty-seven years ago—on account of "infirmity of body," and he had been receiving it ever since. The proper course would have been to give this person six months or so to recover his health instead of pensioning him off in this way. He had no doubt that many of these retiring pensions were occasioned by the improper creation of vacancies, and he believed that if the subject were inquired into by an independent Committee of that House a large sum might be struck off from these estimates.
  MR. WISEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the scale on which the retiring allowances to Consuls were made, which he thought quite inadequate. In almost every case where they had retired from ill health, the allowances were miserably small. In one ease, where a Consul with £800 a year salary, had been obliged to retire from that cause only, the miserable pittance of £200 a year was allowed to him. He knew twenty-six cases in which the Consuls had retired on account of serious ill health, and in all of which trifling pensions had been granted after twenty, thirty, and forty years' residence abroad. The injustice of this was, he thought, the more striking when contrasted with the pensions allowed in the diplomatic service. Ambassadors and Ministers received considerable pensions when they retired, while the Consuls who had been long in the service did not receive much more than the amount contributed by the consular body. The total consular salaries were £137,260, and the pensions £10,542; but the Consuls contributed to the Superannuation Fund no less than £6,863, whilst the diplomatic service paid nothing
  1390
  and received £22,530 in pension, and £150,000 in salaries. A Consul with £500 a year, after serving twenty-five years, and being subject to a deduction of 5 per cent, would receive on retiring £250; and he might mention the case of a Consul General at Chili, who after eighteen years' service at £1,400 a year, received but a pension of £400, having contributed £1,440 to the fund. Considering our complicated relations all over the world, and the immense interests of British property and of the British people, and how important it was to secure the services of able and qualified persons, it seemed to him, that if they wished to obtain good public servants for this branch of our service, they must treat them better than that. He also complained that in many instances, where an office had been abolished, and compensation granted, the office had been shortly after revived, and instead of the same civil servant, another person had been appointed to fill the office against all principles of economy and efficiency. The compensations to be voted this year amounted to £9,720, and he should cite two or three instances in proof of what he stated. A Consul General at Buenos Ayres, receiving £2,500 a year, retired a few years ago at the age of thirty-eight with a pension of £1,000 a year, and it was said that the office was abolished. Almost immediately after, another Consul was appointed, held the office for a very short time, and then retired with, a pension of £266 at the age of thirty-one. At the present moment, we had a Consul General and Agent with a salary of £1,885, and a Vice Consul with £500 a year, making the total outlay £3,651. Again, at Venice, a Consul General receiving £1,200 a year, retired at the age of forty-three with a pension of £600 a year. Abolition of office was the reason assigned. We had now, however, another Consul General at Venice with a salary of £700 a year. He would leave the Committee to judge, whether these appointments and reconstruction of offices were necessary, and whether they were made for the good of the country or for the private advantage of some favoured friend. For his part, he did not see why, if a port became of less importance and the trade small, so as to call for little labour at the hands of a Consul, a reduction in the salary of the existing Consul could not be made; or, at all events, a more systematic promotion established, instead of taking

  1391
  the Consul out of the service altogether on a compensation, and then appointing a fresh officer. The third case he would mention was, that of Tripoli. In 1852, a Consul General receiving £1,600 a year, retired upon a compensation of £850. The office was abolished; but, notwithstanding that, we had now a Consul at Tripoli with £800 a year, and a Vice Consul with £300 a year. He did not say that it was not essential to have a Consul at Tripoli; but he could not see the advantage of abolishing an office, of granting compensation, and then of appointing a fresh officer in that fashion. Again, in 1851, we had a Consul at Foo-chow-foo with £1,200 a year; the office was abolished, and he retired on a pension of £600. Immediately after, another Consul was appointed, and the present establishment consisted of a Consul and Vice Consul, with salaries of £1,200 and £750. He mentioned these facts, because he thought that it was better to give cases, than to make long orations on the Estimates. The public purse was not unlimited; he hoped, therefore, that the Government would consider the subject, that they would not give these compensations, where they were not deserved, and that they would not abolish offices, and in a short time reconstruct; them at such a serious expense to the country.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought that though a certain latitude must be allowed to the Government with regard to pensions and allowances, there should be some general rules observed with regard to them. There were two items with regard to which he should like to have some explanation. It appeared that Mr. Espine Batty, Consul, retired after eight years' service, and, his salary having been £1,000 a year, the pension he received was £500 per annum; and, on the other hand, that Jonathan Johnson, clerk, retired after thirty years' service, and his salary having been £800 a year, his pension was only £550.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he wished to inquire whether the rule laid down by the Committee of 1834, with reference to superannuations and compensation on the abolition of office, was now adhered to? As he understood, the recommendation of that Committee was that they should be the same. He wanted to know whether that rule had been altered, or whether some of the cases referred to in which the compensation awarded had been very large were special ones, out of the ordinary course?
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the practice of the Treasury as regarded abolished offices was by no means uniform. No doubt the rule of giving compensations according to the principle laid down in the Act of 1834 might be considered as the general practice of the Treasury; but in some cases, where it was for the convenience and the economy of the public service that particular offices should be abolished, and where great hardship to individuals accrued, they had considered it competent to the Treasury to act with greater liberality. If a person were superannuated under the Act of 1834, either through age or illness, he must be taken to have left the service for his own convenience, and it must be remembered that his office was immediately filled up by another person, and there was no gain to the public. But the case was altogether different when they abolished an office and compelled a man to retire sooner than he otherwise would have done. No other person was then appointed to the office; the gain was all to the public, and the person so deprived of his situation was entitled to consideration. With respect to the two cases selected by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen, (Colonel Sykes) one was the case of a professional gentleman taken from the law, and in all such cases professional officers were dealt with differently from those who were in the public service as clerks, and who had not been called on to give up a profession. There was a strong instance of this which he could mention. Two years ago Parliament passed an Act which did away with the Metropolitan Building Board, and provided that all servants who had been employed in that department for three or four years should have two-thirds of their then salary. That provision was inserted in the Act on the distinct consideration that they were professional men, who had been withdrawn from their profession, and had, consequently, lost what connection they might have had. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) with respect to the case of the late Consul at Buenos Ayres, he wished to remind the Committee that that charge would not again occur, because arrangements had been made for the re-employment of the officer in question. He was willing to admit the hardship of some of the rules respecting the consular service, but at the same time he would observe that next year, as his hon. Friend was aware, the whole matter would be sub-

  1393
  mitted to a Committee, when abundant opportunity would be given to bring forward the whole details of the service.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he did not think that his hon. Friend had exactly answered his question. No doubt there might be cases of great hardship on the abolition of offices. But his hon. Friend was aware that the recommendation of the Committee was that the same practice should be followed in superannuation cases as in the case of abolition of office. His question was whether in this case the rule had been exceeded, or whether the cases in question were special? No doubt the case of a professional man taken out of his ordinary line of life to fill an office was different from that of a clerk who was taken into the office early in life, and who retired after long service. He quite agreed, also, that many cases of hardship might arise from the sudden abolition of office; but his experience told him that it was by no means the best class of officers who were reduced. When the Committee made its recommendation he knew that the officers were full of complaints; that officers who were selected for reduction were selected because they were not the best officers in the service, and they had retiring allowances granted them, while others were retained, and had to serve much longer, merely because they were more energetic and able men. He believed that in all cases where an extra sum was allowed to retiring officers, the recommendation was that a special minute should be made and laid on the table of the House.
  MR. WILSONwas understood to say, that in the particular instances alluded to, the Act of 1834 had been complied, with, and special minutes made and laid on the table. With regard to others the minutes had been made in former years.
  In reply to a question from Mr. BLACKBURN,
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the Act of 1834 did not grant any specific compensation for the abolition of offices. It merely referred to compensation to those worn out in the service. Up to the age of sixty-five the Treasury had no power to grant superannuation allowances, except under a medical certificate that the officer was no longer fit to serve, combined with a general certificate of good conduct. The superannuation for offices abolished was under a different law, or, rather, arose out of the prerogative of the Crown itself, which had been exercised for a long period
  1394
  and had been recognized by various Parliamentary Committees.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Act itself, which enacted that no compensation shall be given for offices abolished, except under certain circumstances.
  MR. WILSONreplied, that what really was enacted was, that in the cases of offices abolished the compensation should be made out of the funds devoted to the service of that particular department.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to a case in the superannuation list, where a gentleman retired from the service at eighty-four years of age, after a service of ten years only. That gentleman had been receiving a salary of £1,500 a year, and since his retirement a pension of £375 a year. He wished to ask whether it would not have been better to have appointed a younger man from whom more work could have been obtained. There were some other cases which he might name were it not invidious to do so.
  MR. WILSONreplied, that the cases referred to were those very ones abolished by the doing away of the Metropolitan Building Board, and in which the compensation had been distinctly defined in the Act.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he also would beg to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the case of a clerk of the venison warrens, who, after a service of fifteen years at a salary of £150, was allowed to retire on his full salary, and to ask upon what principle that amount of compensation was allowed?
  MR. WILSONsaid, he could not state the exact ground upon which the full salary had been given. Probably it was a patent office, and the person who filled it was entitled to the full salary.
  Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes—
  (2.) £2,058, Toulonese and Corsican, Emigrants.
  (3.) £1,300, National Vaccine Establishment.
  (4.) £325, Refuge for the Destitute.
  (5.) £2,680, Polish Refugees, &c.
  (6.) £4,281, Miscellaneous Allowances,
  MR. WISEsaid, that he observed that £700 of this Vote was to the poor French refugee clergy. Now, as he understood that it was sixty-six years ago since this Vote was placed on the Estimates, and as he assumed the clergymen in question

  1395
  must have been at least twenty-one years of age at that period, and therefore must by this time have reached the age of eighty-seven, he wished to know how much longer it was expected that Parliament would be asked for this money, and whether the recipients were indeed living?
  MR. WILSONreplied, that the application was made through the secretary of the society, a most respectable person, and there was no reason to suppose the money was improperly paid.
  In reply to Mr. BLACKBURN,
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the Vote did not include £1,200 given by the Government to certain literary characters.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must object to several items of the Vote. For instance, he found an item of £22 formerly charged on the hereditary revenues of Scotland, which included alms given to Her Majesty's beadesmen and the expense of finding them with gowns. He thought such payments ought to be discontinued. He also saw an annuity of £500 granted by King Charles II. to the ancestor of the late Sir Thomas Clarges in fee, which he saw no reason why the country should be called upon to pay at the present time. He objected to the charge on principle.
  MR. WILSONreplied, that all these charges had been subjected to the strict examination of a Committee of that House, and had been retained on the ground that it would not be keeping good faith with the recipients. The Committee must remember that the items were formerly charged on the land revenues of the Crown, and the charge had been transferred with the revenues in question.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he did not object to their present payment, but thought they ought to cease on the decease of the recipients.
  In reply to Mr. SPOONER,
  MR. WILSONstated that the item of £90 9s. for repairs of the bridge at Berwick was a charge which had formerly been defrayed from the Civil List.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £1,895, Infirmaries in Ireland.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSexpressed his opinion that this was one of those items which ought not to continue in the Estimates. It might have been defensible before the establishment of the Poor Law in Ireland, but he thought the charge of such institutions ought not now to be thrown upon the public taxes.
  MR. WILSONcould console his hon.
  1396
  Friend by informing him that under the 14 & 15 Vict., &c. 68, these allowances would be gradually discontinued.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,135 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of the Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1858."
  MR. COWANsaid, he rose to object to the item. The noble Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), when he was at the head of the Government, had proposed to reduce the allowances to the Dublin hospitals at the rate of 10 percent per annum, until they altogether ceased. In 1854, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Dublin, the subject was investigated by a Committee, who recommended that the grants should be continued. The Commissioners appointed at the suggestion of that Committee recommended that the total sum granted for the support of the Dublin hospitals should not exceed £15,600, while the aggregate amount now asked of Parliament was £19,017, or an excess of nearly £4,000. In Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other large towns, there was a large immigration of poor Irish, for whose support the ratepayers were compelled to provide from their own resources. The people of Scotland were also about to be called upon for large contributions for the establishment of lunatic asylums; and if it was right that grants similar to that now under consideration should be continued, the House ought to decide upon what principle the money of the State was to be applied to such objects. He therefore proposed that the recommendation of the Committee of 1854 in favour of a certain fixed and specified sum should govern the House on this occasion, and that the £2,600, less the£850 voted on account last Session—in other words, £1,750—should be the sum granted for the Westmoreland Lock Hospital for the present year.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £l,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of the Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin, to the 31st day of March 1838."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was extraordinary that, in the face of complaints from year to year, the grant for this hospital should on this occasion be £2,770 more than the grant of last year.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he had endeavoured

  1397
  to do all that lay in his power to carry out the understanding of the Government of which his noble Friend the Member for the City of London was at the bead, until he was interrupted by the appointment of a Committee of that House. He certainly opposed the appointment of that Committee, but unsuccessfully, and when it reported to the House, no other course remained to the Government than to carry out the recommendations which it made. A Commission was also appointed for the purpose of inquiring how the £16,000 granted by the House for the support of those hospitals should be applied. That Commission recommended a certain distribution of the funds, which the Government, of course, adopted. Besides, an Act of Parliament passed last Session which confirmed the proceedings both of the Committee and the Commission. As to the charge that the Government was this year exceeding the Vote of last year in respect to the Westmoreland Lock Hospital, he could explain how that was. Only £1,215 of the Estimate of 1856 happened to be voted, so that £1,385 was advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund to mate up the Estimate, and that £1,385 had now to be repaid, and was included in the Vote for the present year.
  SIR J. TRELAWNYsaid, he doubted whether the explanation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) was correct on constitutional grounds. The Government ought to have a policy and to act upon it.
  MR. COWANobserved, that he would remind the Committee that he opposed the Bill last year, which passed into a law, and took a division upon it, on the ground that its object was to make the grants for these hospitals more permanent than they ought to be.
  MR. KIRKsaid, the Vote ought not to be objected to by the English Members, inasmuch as whenever it was found that any of those numbers of poor Irish who came over to this country and enriched it by their labour on public works in London, Glasgow, and Liverpool, were unable longer to contribute their labour in that way, they were at once sent home and landed on the nearest shore, unless by long residence in this part of the kingdom they had gained a settlement in it.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he begged to remind the hon. Member (Mr. Kirk) that any Irishman gained a settlement in England after he had resided in it for four years.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to recall to the recollection of the Committee that the grants for these hospitals were guaranteed by the Act of Union, and had continued ever since uninterruptedly, and that a Committee of that House, of whom eleven were English and four were Irish Members, had recently recommended their continuance. He added that on a division thirteen Members of the Committee voted for the continuance of all the grants, and that the grant which they were unanimous in recommending should be continued without reduction was the very one now under discussion. Moreover, he might mention that at the time of the Reformation there were hospitals in London, such as St. Luke's, St. Thomas's, and St. Bartholomew's, which had lands in Ireland, and which they were allowed to retain. There were monasteries at that time in Dublin which had lands in England, but they had lost their lands, and had been allowed grants by Parliament in lieu of them. This alone constituted an equitable claim to an equivalent.
  MR. COXsaid, he could not but characterise the Vote as a paltry one, and was quite surprised that an hon. Member for such a city as the city of Dublin (Mr. Vance) should ask assistance for the Dublin hospitals. The people of Dublin were rich enough, and he was quite sure they were willing, to support their own charitable institutions. The London hospitals were supported by voluntary contributions, and he did not see why the people of Dublin should not act in a similar manner.
  LORD NAASsaid, that in fact three of the largest London hospitals were supported by public moneys, being endowed with the revenues of monasteries suppressed in the reign of Henry VIII.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSconcurred in the opinion of Mr. Cox.
  MR. COWANexpressed his wish to withdraw the Amendment, but
  MR. COXobjected.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes—
  (9.) £700, Lying-in Hospital, Dublin,
  (10.) £300, Combe Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
  (11.) £4,600, House of Industry, Dublin.
  (12.) £2,500, House of Recovery, Dublin.
  (13.) £400, Meath Hospital, Dublin.
  (14.) £150, St. Mark's Ophthalmic Hospital.
  (15.) £1,805, Dr. Steevens' Hospital, Dublin.
  (16.) £427, Board of Superintendence, of Hospitals, Dublin.
  (17.) £4,338, Charitable Allowances.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he must complain that so large a sum should be granted to persons at the will of the Government, The Committee ought to have a list of the persons, and some explanation ought to be given as to the manner in which the money was expended.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he had no means of furnishing details at present, as the money was expended in Ireland.
  Vote agreed to.
  (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding.£39,008, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1856."
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he rose to move the reduction of this Estimate to £366, the amount for widows and orphans, at the same time he wished to state that in asking the Committee in reality to reject the Vote, he was not actuated by any ill-feeling towards the people of Ireland. Being a Protestant and a Nonconformist, he would be the last to breathe a syllable against a body of men for whom he entertained the highest respect, and he should not grudge the money if he believed that the grant was founded upon a correct principle, or was likely to benefit the Irish people. A similar grant was withdrawn from the Nonconformists of England when the noble Lord the Member for the City of London was Prime Minister, and the Nonconformists in this country regarded its withdrawal as a boon and an advantage. He did not wish to raise the question of the Established Church in Ireland. But in Ireland they had not been content with the establishment of Protestant Episcopacy. They had passed an Act providing for the education of Roman Catholic priests, at the same time that they made grants out of the public Treasury to Presbyterians and Unitarians of the Synod of Ulster. The principle of indiscriminate endowments had been received with considerable favour by some of our leading statesmen, and perhaps this might turn out to be a step in that direction; but he believed that principle to be a most vicious one, and calculated, if acted upon, to subvert our civil
  1400
  and religious liberty. Still it was a principle, and he could understand it; but, in selecting four out of twelve denominations in Ireland, he did not think they were acting upon any intelligible policy whatever. He was convinced they would never have ecclesiastical peace in that House or in the country until they began to act upon the opposite principle of impartial disendowment. There were no special reasons why this grant should be maintained. He had often heard it said that the grant was given in lieu of tithes, and that the Presbyterians in the north of Ireland had a right to it. But he had looked carefully into the history of the transaction, and, after the fullest and most impartial investigation, he believed the statement in question to be a pure and unmitigated fiction. Dr. Reid, the historian of the Irish Presbyterian Church, said not a syllable about it; and he learned from a passage in the Memoirs of Lord Castlereagh, that the Presbyterian ministers were put in possession of the tithes being at that time ministers of the Irish Church. They were deprived of them in the time of the Commonwealth, and from the Restoration down to 1672 the Presbyterian ministers of Ireland were supported by the voluntary liberality of their people. William and Mary afterwards granted them a sum of £1,200 a year, to be paid out of the revenues of the Irish Establishment; but in little more than a twelvemonth the Irish Parliament passed a Resolution to the effect that this pension was an unnecessary branch of the Establishment. The Queen continued the grant, but it was soon discontinued by the Irish Government. He thought that the whole history of the donum proved most conclusively that it was neither more nor less than a reward for political services. In 1772 it was placed in the annual Estimates under the head of "secret service" money, and when Lord Castlereagh endeavoured in 1799 to alter the mode of distribution, he entitled his scheme—" A plan for strengthening the connection between the Government and the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster." Such being the origin and history of the grant, what had been its effect upon the Presbyterian Church? It had weakened that Church, and diminished the stipends of its ministers by drying up the sources of voluntary liberality to such an extent that one of their own pastors had spoken of it as the most beggarly denomination in Christendom. It appeared from a recent

  1401
  Parliamentary Return, obtained by the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the Presbyterian congregations of Ulster raised on the average, by their own exertions, no more than £57 per annum each, and it was very remarkable—such had been the effect of the grant—that some of the largest and wealthiest congregations actually contributed less than some of the smallest and poorest. Let him contrast that miserable result with what had been done by the Free Church of Scotland. When the disruption in the Scottish Church took place, 448 ministers and professors abandoned their offices and emoluments in the Established Church of Scotland. That number had grown, in 1857, to 801, with about one-third of the whole population of Scotland adhering to their discipline. In the first year of the disruption the sustentation fund was £68,000; last year it was £108,000. In the first year of the Free Church's existence the ministers received a stipend of £105 annually; now, the number of ministers had increased to 712, who received £140, in addition to the freewill offerings of their congregations. In fact, the average salaries of the Free Church ministers were larger than those of the ministers of the Established Church. The missionary fund had risen from £3,000 in 1843 to £14,000 in 1856. The Free Church schools last year numbered 607, and the manses 535: all created since the disruption. In that space of time the Free Church had raised no less than £3,902,000 for religious purposes. He asked the House to contrast the working of Presbyterianism under the voluntary system in Scotland with its working under State subsidies in Ireland, He submitted that he had made out a case for the consideration of the Committee which justified him in asking them to support the Amendment which he proposed. He was fully persuaded that, if they would take that course, it would have the effect of strengthening Presbyterianism in the north of Ireland, and would be the first step towards the abolition of a policy which was false in principle, and could not be permanently maintained. He should, therefore, conclude by moving that the Vote be reduced to £366.
  MR. KIRKsaid, he felt it necessary to correct some of the mistakes into which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had fallen. When the Presbyterians first settled in Ireland, the question was
  1402
  not whether they were Episcopalians or Presbyterians, but whether they were Protestant. The Irish Protestant Church at that time was not altogether identified with, the Church of England, but was founded on seventy-two Articles, differing in many essential particulars from the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England; the object then being to establish a universal Protestantism in Ireland. Accordingly, the Presbyterian ministers took possession of the manses and tithes, but when the Commonwealth came, they, in common with all other clergymen, were deprived of their revenues. Upon the Restoration they were restored to their benefices, but when the Act of Uniformity was passed, they again, in common with all other non-conforming ministers, were deprived of them. In 1672, however, and not in 1772, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, the present grant was made. It was true, that during the latter part of the reign of James II. the grant was withheld; but it should be understood that James II. was a Roman Catholic, and, therefore, not likely to favour any grant for the maintenance of Protestant ministers. After the Revolution of 1688, the first Act of William III. upon landing in Ireland was to restore the grant, and the very words of that grant were, "in lieu of the tithes of which they had been unjustly deprived." Thus, the Presbyterians claimed it as a contract entered into between them and the Government at that time. It was on a similar footing as the Scotch grant, and like it had been placed on the Consolidated Fund, and it was only very recently that it had been put on the annual Votes. The opposition to this grant did not come from, the Free Church of Scotland, but from a society in the city with a very long name—he meant the "Society for the Liberation of Religion from all State Assistance and Control." He had attended one of their meetings and learnt that their object was to destroy the Irish Church, and to effect that object they sought to obtain the support of the Roman Catholics by depriving them of the Maynooth grant, and of the Presbyterians by the withdrawal of the Regium Donum. The hon. Gentleman who objected to this grant, if he had referred to a paper laid upon the table of the House in February last, would have found that Scotland had not been without her share of grants for religious purposes. These having exactly the same object in view as the Irish grant, but not a word was

  1403
  said against them by any Scotch Member. That return showed that in five years the Church of England had received grants to the extent of £203,296; the Church of Scotland, £106,452; the Church of Rome, 131,910. The grant to the Irish Presbyterians had been always a free and unconditional grant. No Government had attempted to impose terms in respect to it, and if any attempt had been made to impose such terms it would have been vehemently resisted. The Irish Presbyterians believed the grant to be their inalienable right; they received it from their fathers, and would certainly, if possible, hand it down untouched to their children. Let it be remembered that the Scottish Presbyterians found the north of Ireland a barren morass, from which the English settlers had fled in disgust. They had transformed it from barrenness into fertility; and, though the worst land, it was now the best cultivated part of Ireland. It had no fuel of intense power to work its manufactories but what it imported from England and Scotland; and yet, in the face of all these disadvantages, it competed successfully with both countries. He trusted earnestly that the Committee would not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Montrose.
  MR. C. GILPINsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, if he really believed that a contract existed between the Government of this country and the Unitarians of the north of Scotland for granting them a certain sum annually? If the principle of State support for purposes of religion were right, then the Roman Catholics of Ireland undoubtedly had the first claim as constituting the great majority of the people. He should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, however, upon the plain and intelligible principle that all grants of public money for religious purposes were wrong in principle, and also from a strong conviction that these grants tended to lessen the vitality and diminish the strength of true religion wherever they were applied. If the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baxter) were carried, it would be one step towards the consummation so earnestly desired by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner)—the abolition of the Maynooth grant. Let the Protestants first show to the people of Ireland that they did not want the money of the State, and then they could consistently, and with clean hands, demand
  1404
  that the Roman Catholics should give up the grants they received.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that he should support the Amendment, as he altogether denied the existence of a contract. The whole system of State grants was humiliating and degrading to their common Christianity, and was, moreover, absurd, as the Legislature was called on at one and the same time to support the most opposite systems of religion. It was miserable to see the contrast presented between the Free Church of Scotland, which during the thirteen years of its establishment had collected £3,900,000 by voluntary contributions for the support of its institutions, and the Irish Presbyterians, who during the same period had been begging £520,000 or thereabouts from the State. Throughout the whole of Great Britain and Ireland there was not one denomination of Dissenters, with the exception of this rich body, which received a single shilling from the State for religious purposes; and he trusted that the Committee would come to the decision that the grant should no longer be continued to a body so well able to maintain its own institutions; for they might rest assured that, if the grant were withdrawn, the income of the Presbyterian clergy would be increased fourfold by wealthy voluntary contributions.
  MR. BAXTERbriefly replied, and observed, that the reference which had been made by the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk) to Scotland was peculiarly unfortunate, seeing that no nonconformist body in that country received a penny from, the State for religious purposes.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £366 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 117: Majority 76.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (19.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors and the Incidental Expenses of the General Assembly's College at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1858."
  MR. BAXTERsaid that, though opposed to the policy of this Vote, he should not trouble the House to divide against the grant, as he looked upon the last division as decisive in respect to it.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should propose to reduce the Vote by £900. There were six orthodox professors at Belfast College, and he thought three would be quite ample; and that of the two non-subscribing professors of divinity one might be dispensed with, for they were only occupied about an hour each day. He trusted that all such miserable grants would shortly come to an end, and that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who had put a termination to ministers' money, would also get rid of every one of these subjects of contention.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid, the hon. Member objected to this Vote on the voluntary principle; but how did he propose to set it right? Not by taking it away altogether, but by reducing the amount. What sort of argument was it that because there was a small number of students, one professor should teach them everything? It was said the professors did not lecture more than an hour a day each. He should like to know in what academical institution the professors lectured longer. The establishment of the Queen's College in Belfast had given rise to an agreement that the Queen's University should be supplemented with this theological college; it was a solemn compact entered into by the late Sir Robert Peel.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors and the Incidental Expenses of the General Assembly's College at Belfast, and retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March 1858,"—put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (20.) £575,482, Customs Department.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction that the cost of collecting the various branches of the public revenue was now submitted to Parliament, at the same time he must complain that the expenditure incurred for this purpose far exceeded that which was found necessary during the early portion of the present century. In the ten years preceding 1810 the cost of collecting the revenue was 5 per cent, and in the years between 1810 and 1814 it was 5½ per cent, the revenue at that time being nearly equal to its present amount. Last year, however, the cost of collecting the revenue exceeded 7½ per cent, the whole amount expended for that purpose, including superannuations, amounting to £4,699,000.
  1406
  The cost of collection during the last year exceeded that of 1854 by £642,000, and that of 1855 by £313,000, and he hoped the Government would afford some explanation on the subject.
  MR. WILSONobserved, that they were at present on the Customs Votes, and undoubtedly he must admit that there had been a considerable increase in the cost of collecting the Customs duties, but it must be borne in mind that, although the revenue from Customs had exceeded that of former years—which was somewhat a matter of surprise after the large reductions of duty which had taken place—it was necessary to regulate the establishment of the Custom House, not with relation to the amount of duties to be collected, but to the amount of trade with which it was necessary to deal, because it was requisite to provide for the examination and superintendence of every vessel, whatever might be the nature and value of the goods she carried. When hon. Gentlemen remembered the extraordinary increase of trade which had taken place within the last two years, and especially last year—when they recollected that the entries of shipping were double what they were in 1849, when the Navigation Laws were repealed, they would readily understand that a very large establishment must necessarily be required by the Customs department to superintend the vessels and the goods landed from them. He thought it ought to be a matter of great gratification to the House that, although such extensive reductions had taken place in the Customs duties, the revenue derived from that source had not suffered, and the increase of trade was proved by the circumstance that a lower rate of duty yielded an amount equal to that formerly received.
  In reply to Mr. HASSARD,
  MR. WILSONstated, that it was quite true that at present the cost of the tobacco warehouses was in excess of the rent received from that source, but that in a short time an arrangement would come into force which would do away with the present system, and tobacco would in future be warehoused like any other commodity.
  Vote agreed to.
  (21.) £979,133, Inland Revenue.
  MR. COWANsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had received any representation with respect to the salaries of the officers of Excise. Several petitions had

  1407
  been presented to the House, representing that since those salaries had been fixed at their present amount an increase had been made in the salaries of various other departments, and that the Excise officers were inadequately remunerated. He believed that the salary of an Excise officer was no more than £90 a year, which was never raised, while the salaries in other departments were increased by £5 or £10 each year. Unless an Excise officer was promoted to the rank of supervisor, his salary remained at £90 to the end of his life. He believed that the Board of Inland Revenue had strongly recommended the Treasury to consider favourably the representations of the Excise officers; but he was aware that was an inopportune moment for making any demand upon the Treasury. He begged to thank the Government, and particularly the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, for having conceded the prayer which had been presented for so many years by the officers of Excise that the system of compulsorily removing them to distant parts of the country might be abolished. He knew that a feeling of gratitude pervaded the Excise officers for that concession.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask how it was that the charge for this year was £200,000 in excess of the year 1854?
  MR. WILSONstated that the increased poundage on the income tax, which, however, had ceased on the 20th of March last, accounted for it. The only other increase in the Estimate was on account of the allowance to riding officers of £20 a year for a horse. With regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh respecting the remuneration of Excise officers, the Government had received a very large number of applications for increase of salary from the Excise officers. The majority of them evidently emanated from one common centre, although they had arrived from a great number of quarters. One of the main reasons urged for an increase of salary was their liability to pay the income tax. All he could say was that the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury would consider the application, and make known their decision in a short time.
  MR. BLACKobserved, that the salary of a first-class surveyor of Excise in Scotland was £200 a year, while the salary of a first-class surveyor in England was £460 a year. Again, the salary of a
  1408
  second-class surveyor in Scotland was £170 a year; the salary of a second-class surveyor in England was £400 a year. The salary of a third-class surveyor in Scotland was £160, while in England the salary of a third-class surveyor was £340 a year. So that while the average salary in England was £253, in Scotland it was only £170. Now, the officers in Scotland had precisely the same duties to discharge as those in England, and the qualifications demanded were identically the same. He hoped, therefore, that an end would be put to the odious distinction between their salaries.
  MR. WISEsaid, he wished to be informed by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury whether the Chief Commissioner of Works had the superintendence of the building and repairs of the Ireland Revenue Offices and the General Post Office, because he found in this Vote an item of £25,000 for new buildings, although last year a sum of £30,000 was voted for the same purpose.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that till very recently the whole of the expenses connected with each department of the Inland Revenue were paid out of the gross receipts of that particular department; but the whole of the works of the public departments were for the future to be under the superintendence of the Commissioner of Works. The reason why this Vote was not transferred was that the works to which it referred were in progress when that change was effected.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to remind the hon. Secretary to the Treasury that he had not answered the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Black) as to the distinction between the salaries of the English and Scotch surveyors of Excise.
  MR. WILSONapologised for not having replied to the hon. Gentleman's observations. He was informed that although the name was the same the duties of the officers referred to were entirely different, and he could only say that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Inland Revenue Board were exceedingly desirous of doing everything to do justice to all the officers employed in the collection of the Inland Revenue. He was sure that the difference of the duties was quite sufficient to justify the difference of the salaries.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he would admit that there was a difference in the duties, and it was this—the Scotch surveyors had to do

  1409
  all that was done by the English surveyors and something more into the bargain.
  Vote agreed to.
  (22.) £43,120, Revenue Police (Ireland).
  MR. VANCEasked, if there had been any increase in illicit distillation in Ireland during the last year to justify this large estimate? He observed in the Estimate an item of £2,880 for the "wages and victualling of crew of Seamew revenue steamer, and coals." This was not an Estimate for the coastguard service; it was merely for the revenue police, and he could not understand what the police had to do with a revenue steamer.
  MR. WILSONsaid, the Government had no reason to believe that there had been any increase of illicit distillation in Ireland within the last year; on the contrary, there appeared to have been less than formerly. With respect to the amount of the Estimate, the Government hoped, under the Bill which he should ask the House to read a second time on an early day, to reduce the expenditure materially in the course of the present year. As to the Seamew steamer, the hon. Member might not perhaps be aware that for many years past it had been absolutely necessary to maintain a steamer on the north and west coasts of Ireland for the purpose of visiting the creeks and islands where illicit distillation formerly prevailed to a very large extent, and that it had been found extremely useful in suppressing the trade.
  Vote agreed to.
  (23.) £1,268,181, Post Office.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that there was an increase on this Vote of £348,000.
  MR. WILSONexplained, that no fewer than 1,500 new district post offices had been established, so no village of any size was without a post office, and no farmhouse without its letter carrier. Indeed, the department was to be looked at as a part of the public service rather than a means of revenue.
  MR. GROGANsaid, he wished to know why there was a medical officer and medicine provided for the men of the London Post Office, and not for those of Dublin?
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the number of men in the Dublin office was small as compared with the number in the London office, and would not justify the appointment of a medical officer.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he must complain that in the Estimate for the conveyance
  1410
  of mails by railroad, amounting to upwards of £580,000, no less than £268,039 was put down as an unascertained sum for services which were easily ascertainable— namely, £204,703 for the conveyance of mails on the Great Western, North-Eastern, and South Wales Railways; £47,000 for the same service on the Great Southern and Western Railway, Ireland; and £16,336 for the same service on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, the Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway, and the North British Railway. He suggested that it was desirable to bring those charges before the House in a more complete and businesslike manner.
  MR. WILSONexplained, that whenever a service was ascertained the cost was given with precision. But this large sum was taken as an estimated charge only, because there were a great number of arbitrations pending, the claims connected with which the Post Office might be called upon to pay at any time in the course of the year.
  Vote agreed to, as was also—
  (24.) £323,150, Superannuations (Revenue Department).
  (25.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £100,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st March, 1858.
  MR. WISEsaid, that in a great country like this £100,000 was probably not too great a sum to be intrusted to the executive for unforeseen expenditure; and all that the country required was, that it should be used for necessary and proper purposes. He thought that some of the items required explanation. There was a sum of £1,000 paid to the parties who brought home the treaties of peace from Paris and Persia. Seeing that the country paid £42,000 a year for couriers and messengers, the necessity of giving to a gentleman who was in the receipt of a good salary, a sum of £500, merely for travelling from Paris to London, was not very obvious. There was also £2,000 given to the clerks of the Foreign Office in consequence of the extra duties performed by them during the war. He believed the clerks at the Foreign Office did their duty well, and he was the last person to grudge them full and ample payment for their services, but he was anxious to know whether the hardworking junior clerks had received their fair share of this amount, or was it all swallowed up by two or three superior officials,

  1411
  who superintended the labours of the rest and generally obtained most of, if not all, the credit. The item of £1,200 for the legal expenses connected with the purchase of Burlington House seemed to be excessive. The Solicitor of the Treasury had a large salary, and he could not imagine how such an expenditure could have arisen from the purchase of a house and two acres of garden. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland received an annual salary of £20,000, yet there was a paltry charge in this account of £18 for a robe for that distinguished representative of royalty. There was a charge of £28,517 for special missions, being those of Lord Clarendon to Paris, and Lord Granville to Russia; but they had voted a few nights since £37,500 for miscellaneous diplomatic expenditure, of which £12,500 had been appropriated to the mission to Petersburg and Moscow at the recent coronation. There was no portion of our expenditure that required inspection more than this department, for it was scattered over several Estimates. £180,000 was annually charged on the Consolidated Fund for the salaries and pensions of the diplomatic body, and he might mention, that since 1840 no less a sum than £5,431,000 had been expended for all the departments connected with the diplomatic and consular establishments. So long as Reports of Committees and Resolutions of that House were ignored and set at defiance, and such small missions as those of Hanover, Florence, and Stutgard continued, we should find that this expenditure would continue, and probably increase. Last year, besides £150,000 for salaries, and £22,530 for pensions, and £37,500 for miscellaneous expenses, the sum of £7,390 had been allowed for outfits, making £217,420 for one year's diplomatic expenditure, and to show the Committee the character and amount of this outlay, he might state, that during twelve years we had voted for outfits £55,304; for special missions £123,720; for house rent £110,774; and for miscellaneous expenses £235,581; amounting in all to £525,379; and unless the Committee had these items in sectional Estimates, it was not possible, without considerable trouble, to know what each department cost. It was easy to assume that the Paris embassy cost £10,000 a year, that being the sum stated in the annual accounts; but in another Vote was £3,909 for miscellaneous expenses; in another £1,709 for repairs and taxes, and
  1412
  £401 for wages; and it must not be forgotten that we had paid £87,000 for the embassy house; and in addition to this, during the last three years, we had paid £1,150 for altering and repairing the chapel. So at Constantinople the salaries were £11,340, but the extra were £8,269, the repairs £1,000, the wages £564, whilst the House had cost £86,615. Until he had carefully inspected these Estimates and examined those of past years, he had no idea of this large expenditure, and he thought that Her Majesty's Government were not doing their duty in permitting what appeared to him a very unnecessary and very extravagant drain upon the public purse.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he really must correct the hon. Gentleman's inaccuracy, for the robe of the Lord Lieutenant cost £18 and 7d. He must also complain of £287 for the translation of a French tariff, and£2,000 for a Commission to Erzeroum to settle differences out there between neighbouring Governments. This charge for that Commission had been going on for fifteen years, and yet the Commission had returned to this country ten years ago, and one of them, the Hon. Mr. Curzon, had written a very amusing book of his goings on there. Then there was £834 for researches in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea for nitre—rather an out-of-the-way part of the world.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, there was an item of £62 17 s. 8d. for bringing home John Frost, after transporting him out of the country at the public expense. There was an item of £1,516 for the Islington Park, and an item of £4,000 for collars and badges for knights. He also objected to the charge for the police at Aldershot and other encampments. It appeared to him that the commander at a camp ought to be able to keep his troops in proper discipline without the aid of the civil force. Then he found the sum of £1,200 to be distributed among the Episcopalian clergy in Scotland—a vote which was open to many objections; but he would not detain the House upon that. Unless a party was formed in that House to keep down the expenditure, they would never produce an effect on the Government, and he feared the country would be thrown into financial difficulties. He could not but believe that more attention would be paid to these subjects in the House of Commons if the franchise was extended.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the very large sums remaining unexpended of balances of civil contingencies. Not less than £150,000 remained of the balances of former years, and this ought to be spent before any new money was voted. He found in page 5 an account of expenses incurred for presents to Dr. Kane and others of the American Arctic expedition. He did not, in the least, complain of that money being spent, but he thought the Government ought to take some notice of the spirited conduct of Mr. Peabody, a gentleman of great wealth and high position, who had contributed several thousand dollars towards the expedition for discovering the Erebus and Terror. He objected to the items of £6,145 for the Commission for settling the territory of the Cape of Good Hope, as he held that the colony ought to pay this expense.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he spoke from a knowledge of recent proceedings in the Bight of Benin, and consequently must complain of the Vote which had been made to a most unworthy person, King Pepple, who had been lately deposed from his kingdom in those regions. The liberated negroes in the Bight of Benin were preyed upon by the kings of those countries; but it was to the efforts of those free negroes that the increasing trade which was springing up between this country and the coast of Africa might be attributed.
  MR. WILSONexplained the items in the Vote. As to the balances, a statement was presented last year, showing the exact state of the accounts. There was a balance of £80,000 in hand, and that sum, £70,000, was afterwards repaid to the Exchequer. With regard to the presents voted to the officers in command of the expedition sent out to search for the Erebus and Terror, they were confined to those officers who were actually employed in the expedition. He was quite sure that Mr. Peabody, from his position, made contributions from higher principles than the expectation of any marks of approval from this country, but the Government would always feel the greatest gratitude towards those gentlemen, and especially Mr. Peabody, who assisted to fit out that expedition. With regard to the gratuities which had been referred to, it had been an immemorial custom to give £500 to the messenger who brought home a treaty of peace or the news of a great victory, and the custom had been followed in the instances
  1414
  of the fall of Sebastopol, the Treaty of Paris, and the Persian Treaty. With regard to the £2,000 given to the clerks in the Foreign Office, that was the only office to which no extra assistance was afforded during the whole time of the war. There was great pressure upon it, and he was sure the Committee would be of opinion that the Treasury only did what was right in complying with the earnest request of Lord Clarendon and distributing £2,000 among the whole of the clerks, irrespective of their grades. With regard to the charges for special missions, such as Lord Clarendon going to Paris and Earl Granville to Moscow, they were different from those voted the other night for special expenses connected with the embassies, the latter being for couriers, postages, and other extra charges of the current year. With regard to the cost of obtaining a translation of the French tariff, it was thought desirable that the Board of Trade should be in possession of all the different tariffs to meet returns ordered by the House, and to put hon. Members in possession of valuable information. With regard to the item of £1,200 for the Episcopalian clergy of Scotland, that sum was paid last year, and it was the last time the item would appear. With regard to the charges for police at Aldershot, Dovor, and Shorncliffe, where there were large numbers of troops congregated in camp there would be camp-followers, and the police were required, not to keep the soldiers, but to keep the camp-followers in order. The small charge for searching for coal was incurred at the time of the war, when it was thought important to discover new supplies of coal for our steamers. With regard to the charges for Orders of the Garter, it had often been remarked that it was a very mean thing to offer an honour to a military officer for distinguished service in the field, and at the same time expect him to pay £200 or £300 for fees. The Government had therefore come to a decision two years ago to distribute these honours gratuitously, and their decision had received the approval of the House in the last and preceding Sessions of Parliament. With regard to the charges for the passage of governors, they were made upon a regulated scale, and had long been defrayed by the country.
  MR. BLACKwished to know the principle upon which grants to Ireland were increased and grants to Scotland withdrawn.
  MR. WILSONexplained that the grant to the Irish Presbyterians was a very old one. It originated with the Irish Parliament, and had been voted ever since the Union. That to the Scotch Episcopalians was of recent origin. It was at first only occasional, and did not become regular until about fifteen years ago. Government felt, therefore, they could withdraw one, but not the other.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, no one would wish that distinguished naval and military officers should be called upon to pay fees when they received a well-merited honour: but he objected to having any fees at all paid to a set of idle, useless officers.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he should move the reduction of the Vote by £5,403 4s. 6d., made up of the following items:—Expense incurred on account of police on duty at Dovor and Shorncliffe, £542 13 s.; the Commission for inquiry into the Government of Maynooth College, £1,200; fees paid to the Clerk of the Crown on the election of a temporal peer for Ireland, £46 3s. 1d.; for granting a pardon to J. Frost and others, £62 17 s. 8d.: expenses incurred on account of intended park at Islington, £1,516 16 s. 8d.: Episcopalian Church of Scotland, £1,200; and Mr. Poole, remuneration and expenses while engaged in researches for coal in Nicomedia, and for nitre on the shores of the Black Sea, £834 12 s. 1d.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £94,507 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March 1858.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that perhaps the hon. Baronet was not aware that all these sums had been already paid. If the Amendment was carried, the only result would be that the sum at the disposal of Government for next year would be £95,000 instead of £100,000, but not one of these items would be affected.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYthought that in that case their control of the public finances was a mere farce. He withdrew his Amendment.
  MR. WATKINSasked for an explanation of the sum charged for creating Lord Wensleydale a Peer.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that Lord Wensleydale was, in the first instance, created a Peer for life, but it was afterwards found necessary to make him an hereditary Peer. He paid
  1416
  the fees for the first patent himself, but the Government thought that they ought to pay the expenses of the second.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, he considered the practice of giving a present of £500 to the messenger who brought a treaty to be most objectionable, and not at all applicable to the present day. He gave notice that whenever such an item appeared in the Estimates again he would move that it be disallowed.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he wished to ask whether any expedition to Africa were now in preparation?
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the last expedition of Dr. Barth to Central Africa had produced very remarkable results, and great benefits were likely to be derived from it both as regarded the interests of commerce and civilization, and therefore the Treasury had adopted the recommendation of Lord Clarendon, that successive expeditions should be sent out for four or five years, as he considered that it was only by following up the experiment in that manner that a way could be opened for private enterprise. Arrangements had been made to carry out his recommendation.
  MR. WYLDasked to what district the expeditions were to be directed?
  MR. WILSONreplied, that the expeditions were now in preparation. One was to be directed to the north-east coast of Africa, and the other was to ascend the Niger.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he must still complain of the item for a robe for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as Grand Master of the Order of St. Patrick.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  The House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

FRAUDULENT TRUSTEES BILL.

  REPORT.
  On consideration of the Bill as amended.
  MR. HADFIELD MR. HADFIELD moved to insert the following Clause after Clause 3, page 2, at the end of line 4:—
  "Any person entrusted with any property of any description for the purpose of performing, or causing to be performed, any work or labour upon, to, or in respect of the same, who shall fraudulently sell, transfer, pledge, dispose of, or convert, in point of law or of fact, to his own use or benefit such property, or any part thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
  He observed that the Bill as it stood was

  1417
  by no means clear, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to render it so, he trusted he would accept the suggestion.
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he should oppose the Motion, as a clause to the same effect had already been inserted.
  Motion made and Question, "That the said Clause be now read 2o," put and negatived.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he rose to move to omit Clause 10, which interfered with a principle that had hitherto been respected, namely, that no person should be obliged to answer any question the tendency of which was to criminate himself. Up to this moment that principle had never been departed from. There were but two Acts which appeared to be departures—namely, the act against bribery at elections, and the Bankrupt Act. In the former case, however, there was a distinct provision that no proceedings should ever be taken against the person for the matters in respect to which he should have been compelled to give evidence; not that his evidence should not be used against him, but that no proceedings should ever be taken. In the second case also, that of the Bankrupt Act, it was provided that if he answered fairly and truly, no subsequent proceedings should be taken. It was true that the clause went on to provide that his evidence should not be used against him on any criminal proceeding, but he thought that provision was insufficient, as though the evidence could not be used, yet questions might be put with a view to obtain information that would enable parties to get up evidence against him. He did not say that the change ought not to be made, the innovation might be a wise and proper one, though he did not think so; but he wished them to consider that they were reversing an old-established principle, and that they ought not to do so without due deliberation.
  MR. HADFIELDseconded the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he was at a loss to know how the clause as it stood altered the law with regard to a witness criminating himself.
  MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKEsaid, the principle of the law was that a witness should not be involved in a predicament by any answers he gave on examination, or in other words, that any particular question
  1418
  he may have answered shall not be used against him. But it did not go on to provide that if a Trustee were compelled to disclose certain matters which would involve him in a criminal prosecution, he should be therefore held to be exempt from punishment. All he proposed to do was this—That a Trustee should be bound to answer faithfully and fully as to the management of the trust property, and that he should not, by reason of his being a trustee, take advantage of that position to commit a fraud. He wanted to carry out the great principle that a man should not set up his own wrong to enable him to escape from being punished.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. I. Butt) had mistaken the object of the clause. What he proposed was that a Trustee, being already bound by civil contract to answer faithfully and fully every question which might be put to him concerning the use which he had made of the property entrusted to him, when he had committed a crime by stealing some of that property, should not afterwards be allowed to set up his theft as a defence to a civil suit in which he was required to make a full discovery. The clause was intended to apply solely to proceedings in a court of equity.
  Question, "That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill," put. and agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that when the 20th Section was under consideration a good deal of discussion took place with regard to it, and the result was-that it was postponed. The preceding clause declared that no prosecution should be proceeded with until the matter had been brought before a Judge of one of the Superior Courts, or the Attorney General, or the Solicitor General, &c. The Committee thought it might be desirable that the accused party should have a bearing previous to an indictment being preferred, and, in order to meet its view, he should propose the insertion of the following words: "But he"—that is the Judge— or the Attorney General, or the Solicitor General—" shall in every case give the party accused an opportunity of answering the charge, where the same can in his opinion be done with a due regard to the interests of justice."
  Amendment agreed to. Bill to be read 3o on Thursday.

JUSTICES AND POLICE FORCE (DUBLIN) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  MR. GROGANsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Bill at that late hour. When the Bill was last before the House, he represented to the Secretary for Ireland that it was a measure in which the people of Dublin were deeply interested, and it should not pass without giving them the fullest opportunity of considering its provisions. The Corporation of Dublin had stated by petition many objections to the Bill, and they complained that not even the heads of the Bill had been submitted to them previous to its introduction to Parliament. If the Bill was read a second time that night he did not think it could pass during the present Session, especially as he should consider it to be his duty to give it his most strenuous opposition. He begged to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months:"
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that nineteen days had elapsed since the Bill was printed and distributed amongst hon. Members, so that the hon. and learned Gentleman could hardly say there was any surprise. In deference to the Corporation of Dublin he last year withdrew the Bill, and had since, after carefully examining their petition, and the speeches of those hon. Members who then opposed it, expunged from it every objection of which they complained. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not pointed out a single objection to the measure as it now stood, and which merely consolidated into one Act all that was really useful in the nine separate and conflicting Acts by which the Dublin police was at present regulated. It also proposed to do away with one of the three existing Police Offices, and thereby effect a saving of £4,000 a year, and to reduce the number of police magistrates from seven to five, increasing, however, on account of the extra labour thus imposed on them, the salaries of the remaining
  1420
  five from £600 to £800 per annum. There was, in the Bill, no provision for extending the power of the police, but the real wish of the Corporation of Dublin was to place the whole charge of the force upon the finances of the country, which already bore one half the cost, for they asked to have the Dublin police placed upon the same footing as the Irish constabulary, or else themselves to have the control of that body. ["Hear, hear," from Mr. BUTT], The hon. and learned Member for Youghal cheered that proposal, but was he willing that, in return for being entrusted with such control, the ratepayers of Dublin should bear the whole cost of their own police? The Bill merely consolidated the law, and was in all respects a very beneficial Act, enabling the meanest capacity to understand what the police law of Dublin was by reducing a very complicated law into the provisions of one Bill. He certainly should press the Bill to a second reading.
  MR. BUTTthought that, if the Government had the management of the police, they ought to pay all the expenses attendant thereupon, though if he were a citizen of Dublin he should be willing to pay any extra expense to have the control of that force, for at present the inhabitants of that city were subject to much vexatious tyranny at their hands. There was a case in Dublin of a man being dragged off by a police-constable for using obscene language, and when the constable was asked what the language was, he replied that the man had actually "d—d the police." There were most objectionable powers reenacted in the Bill, and one of them was with regard to obscene language. He should oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONdenied that the Attorney General had any authority for stating that the Bill was similar to the Bill of last year, except that the objectionable clauses had been struck out. The Amendments of the Attorney General had not removed all the objections to the Bill. The Attorney General had not, as he should have done, consulted those who last year made the objections to the Bill. The Attorney General, before he brought in a Bill affecting the municipal laws of Dublin, ought to have given full notice. It appeared, however, that the authorities of the city of Dublin had been taken quite by surprise by the present Bill.
  MR. VANCEsaid, it was his intention of giving the strongest possible opposition to the Bill in all its future stages. The Bill had been referred to a committee of the Corporation in Dublin, and they had not had time to report. The members of the corporation had urged him and his colleague to take every possible step to arrest the further progress of the Bill. He would suggest, however, whether it would not be better to bring the Bill in next Session, and then refer it to a Select Committee, or at all events to refer it to a Committee during the present Session.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, the Bill had been printed nineteen days, and had been before the House during the whole of that time. Not one single substantial objection had been made to the Bill. Under the circumstances he hoped the House would consent to the second reading. His hon. and learned Friend would be prepared to entertain any suggestions before it went into Committee.
  CAPTAIN D. O'CONNELLsaid, there was the strongest objection among the people of Dublin to an increase of power being invested in the commissioners of police in that city.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 19: Majority 136.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for To-morrow.

PUBLIC OFFICES EXTENSION BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Clause 1.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the Bill empowered Government to purchase certain properties required for the extension of the Public Offices.
  Clause 1 to 39 were agreed to.
  On Clause 40,
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would give the House some approximate notion as to the amount of money that would be required. With wars in Persia and China on out hands, he thought the House should know the amount of the demand that was likely to be made on it.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the Government were only proposing to carry out a portion of the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session on
  1422
  public offices. The amount which the Government intended to ask to enable them to purchase the site of the new offices was £270,000; but the present Bill contained no money clauses, but only such as were requisite to empower the Public Works Commissioners to purchase the land. Should the House of Commons grant the money for that purpose, and the third reading of the Bill should not be taken until after the vote for money which would appear in Class No. 7 of the Civil Service Estimates,
  The remaining Clauses were agreed to, and the Bill passed through Committee.
  On the Bill being reported, without Amendments,
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he would give the right hon. Baronet notice that, although this Bill had gone through Committee at a railroad pace, the country would never sanction the enormous scheme of building which it contemplated. Bricks and mortar too often led to bread and water, and he for one would rather see great men in little offices than little men in great offices. He warned the House that unless they kept a sharp eye on this matter of the public offices the country would be involved in an expenditure of £5,000,000 before they knew where they were. The present Parliament were supposed to be more jealous custodians of the public parse than the last, and he certainly should oppose any such extravagant plan as he believed to be in contemplation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the House did not agree to the Vote, the Bill would fall to the ground. The Government had no large scheme of building in contemplation; they merely intended to build a new Foreign Office, a new Colonial Office, and a new War Department. Any one who saw the Foriegn Office must admit that a new building was necessary; and with respect to the War Department, its business was now carried on in various buildings, and to remove it to one edifice was a measure not only of metropolitan improvement but of administrative.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEobserved, that he thought that the best thing Government could do under this Bill would be to adopt the plan he had suggested.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he did not think they had done their duty to their constituents by passing such a Bill through Committee at such an hour of the night.
  Bill to be read 3o on Friday.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. COWANthen moved that the House adjourn. They would have to meet early the next day, and it would neither be fair to Mr. Speaker nor to their own constitutions to sit longer at present.
  MR. ADDERLEY,who had a Bill on the Orders of the Day (the Industrial Schools Bill), expressed a hope that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Bankruptcy and Real Securities (Scotland); Crown, &c. Suits (Scotland).
2a Larceny, &c.; Offences against the Person; Malicious Injuries to Property; Forgery; Libel; Coinage Offences; Deer, Game, and Rabbits; Accessories and Abettors.
3a Sale of Obscene Books, &c. Prevention.

THE MUTINY IN INDIA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I am anxious to put a question to the noble Earl with reference to the news which has been received from India, and the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue. It is now three months since the minus of the most reflecting men have been directed with great anxiety to the state of the army in India, and every successive mail has tended to increase that anxiety. But, not withstanding this state of affairs, no one word of official information has yet been given to Parliament. We have been left to depend upon private letters and upon articles in the newspapers; and while the empire is in danger, we know nothing of the cause of the danger or the nature of the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government to suppress it. My Lords, I do not think that this is a state of things that ought to continue. I have said that every successive mail increases our anxiety, and yet by every successive telegraphic de-
1324
spatch we are told that the crisis is past, that the danger is over, and that things have been at their worst. My Lords, it is hot so. In a case of this kind—of a dangerous and extensive mutiny—things go on from worse to worse, and so will proceed until the strong hand of power has interfered to suppress the resistance to the authority of the Government. As yet no indication has been given of the existence on the part of the Government of India of that power which is necessary to suppress the present mutiny. The general tendency of those who call themselves the public instructors of the country is to endeavour to induce persons to believe that this is only a passing calamity, and that slight measures only are required to put down the rebellion in India. It seems to me that there are many among us who resemble that sagacious animal which, when pressed by its pursuers, hides its head in the sand and thinks it is not seen because it cannot see. My Lords, all Europe is regarding with the deepest interest the conduct which under the present circumstances we are pursuing. Upon that conduct depend our present character and our future position in India. I do not believe that there exists in this House or in the other any indisposition to grant to Her Majesty's Government all the means they may ask for the purpose of establishing our authority in India. If we do not do right, the disgrace is with the Government, but the loss of India must undoubtedly be with us. But it depends upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he shall obtain for himself a reputation similar to that which was obtained under difficult and dangerous circumstances by Lord Chatham, or allow his Government to go down to posterity as the most calamitous, the most disastrous, and the most disgraceful since the time of Lord North. My Lords, what Her Majesty's Government have done since the last telegraphic communication which we have received is, so far as I am acquainted with their conduct, right. They could not, I think, have appointed a better officer than Sir Collin Campbell to be at the head of the army in India. I have at all times held the highest opinion of that gallant officer. I received it from the late Sir Charles Napier, who from the first moment of his acquaintance with him formed his opinion, which was afterwards fully confirmed, that he was one of the first officers we had. But in order to give full effect to the abilities of Sir Col-

1325
lin Campbell, two things are necessary; first, that in acting as Commander in Chief in India he should be altogether relieved from the thraldom which it has been too customary to subject commanders of forces in the field in India to—the thraldom of politicals: the next is that he should, as Lord Harris did in the time of Lord Wellesley, carry with him the whole strength and force and power of the Governor General. It was the pride of Lord Wellesley that he thus supported the officers under his command, and we see what successes in the field rewarded his wise and generous conduct. I approve the wise measure which has been adopted by the Government in India in appointing Sir Patrick Grant to the temporary command of the army. I do not ask whether they are strictly and legally justified in making that appointment, nor is it at the moment a matter worthy of consideration. They have regarded the public interests in placing the best man they could find at the head of the army. In doing so they have deserved well of their country. But, my Lords, observe this—that on the arrival of Sir Colin Campbell, Sir Patrick Grant will cease to hold the military command; and I must say that I have long regarded it as an object of the greatest importance that the Governor General should have the aid of Sir Patrick Grant as his military adviser in this crisis. It occurs to me that this great object can be effected in this manner—by enabling for a time the Court of Directors to appoint as an Extraordinary Member of Council a, military officer. When once they appoint Sir Patrick Grant, he will remain in Council with the Governor General and aid him with him advice. There are already two respectable officers who act in that capacity—the one as military Member of Council and the other as military secretary. I respect them both for the creditable manner in which they discharged in previous situations their duties—the one as political officer and the other as Judge Advocate. But there was nothing whatever in their previous services which could enable them to give to the Governor General that advice upon which he may rely as an authoritative expression of that which it is right for him to adopt; and it is most desirable that his Council should contain such men. I know that persons are very much disappointed at not having received by this telegraphic communication an account of the capture of Delhi. I think that disappointment unreasonable. I did
1326
not expect to receive that account; nor do I think any one can fairly impute blame to the commander of our force that, at the worst season of the year, and without the means of carriage, he should not have made a march of more than 130 miles in the time that was anticipated. I understand, however, that our troops have succeeded in defeating a body of the enemy which opposed them in the vicinity of Delhi. This account brings two things to my mind. The first is that the insurgents must have been much stronger than we supposed if they were induced to go out beyond the walls of Delhi; and the next, I rejoice to say, is that it impresses me with the conviction that they have no leader to command them. Happening to know the ground I am not in the least degree surprised that they should have lost all their guns; because in such a position it would be impossible for them when pressed to carry their guns away. My Lords, we hear that the defection is becoming very general—that it is extending to the whole of the Bengal army, of whom 26,000 are in revolt. We hear more than this—we hear that in the Punjab all the Native regiments have been disarmed. Now, among those regiments there are two of which I happen to know the recent history—namely, the 16th Grenadiers and the 26th Light Infantry. The 16th Grenadiers was one of the noblest regiments of the Indian army. It bore on its colours almost as many records of actions fought and victories gained as any regiment in Her Majesty's service. It was brigaded with Her Majesty's 40th Regiment during the whole of Sir William Nott's operations in Affghanistan. It served at Maharajpore, and by the side of the 40th Regiment it equalled the Queen's troops in courage, fortitude, and devotion, and lost as many men. The 26th Regiment of Light Infantry distinguished itself under the command of Sir George Pollock. When Sir George Pollock joined the army at Peshawur, 800 men, out of the whole 4,000 men he found there, were in hospital, the majority of whom, however, suffered more from their own apprehensions than from any actual sickness. The only troops, under those circumstances, upon which Sir George Pollock could entirely depend were this 26th Regiment which has just been disarmed. My Lords, there must have been a continuance of mismanagement and misconduct which I cannot comprehend before the nature of the soldiers composing those regiments could have

1327
been so changed. There cannot have been one non-commissioned, and certainly not one commissioned, Native officer in those regiments who did not show his gallantry and fidelity under General Nott and General Pollock; and it is lamentable to think that the glories of two such regiments should be obliterated from the Indian army, or that any circumstances, whatever they may have been, should have occurred to alienate them for an instant from the Government, and to make the officer in command think it necessary to deprive them of arms which they have always borne so nobly and so successfully in the field. It becomes us, then, my Lords, to look forward and consider, from the facts we have before us, what is likely to be our position in India on the 1st of November—the time when our troops will arrive, and when, after the rains, it will be possible to move. I have endeavoured, my Lords, to form an opinion on that subject. I assume that we take Delhi—I assume that our troops continue to hold Delhi, Meerut, and the neighbouring stations. But I know the locality. No European regiments are ever stationed there on account of the sickness which, prevails; and at the end of the rains even the Native regiments have from two-thirds to three-fourths of their strength prostrated. Therefore, if our troops take and occupy Delhi, if they expel the King from his palace and drive out all his forces, and even if they do everything in their power to promote the health of our men, you cannot possibly expect them to be in a state to resume operations on the 1st of November. All I can venture to hope is that they will be able to hold the places they occupy. In the very centre of the mutiny our troops will be like the French in Spain—they will hold what they stand upon, but little or nothing else. When the army, which constitutes our strength, is dissipated and gone, and the men have become, as they will do, rebels or robbers, it is impossible to believe that we shall be able to collect the revenue and administer the government. In the Punjab things may be a little better. You have able men there who, I trust, will be able to maintain their own. They may perhaps be able, through the aid of the local corps, to collect a portion of the revenue, but I do not think they can possibly do more. Certainly they will not be able to move beyond the banks of the Sutlej to render assistance to any other corps. All I can hope is, that in these provinces our autho-
1328
rities will stand their ground, and that the Punjab will be maintained. With your Lordships' permission I must enter into a few details, and examine what force we really want; because it is idle to talk of sending out regiments unless we know what are the demands upon us and what the troops are to do when they arrive. When the insurrection first broke out we had only two regiments at Calcutta and its neighbourhood. The Government sent for one regiment from Madras, and two from Bombay, which were in the Persian Gulf at the time. This, with another regiment previously ordered up, will make six regiments at Calcutta when these troops arrive. The first thing to consider is the protection of the capital, the seat of Government, where there is a treasury containing many millions, and an enormous amount of mercantile property. It is the point through which alone the Customs, the salt tax, and the opium revenue can be levied. It is essential to the maintenance of British authority in India not only that Calcutta should be held, but that there should be no possible doubt as to our holding it, and that the Government should be always able to act and legislate there in perfect security. In order to do this you must maintain at least three regiments there. In addition to the troops there you ought to have at least six steamers in the river to protect the Government offices, &c. Allahabad is a most important station at the junction between the Jumna and the Ganges; while at Lucknow—the centre of a great Mahomedan population—there ought to be more that one regiment. Thus, the whole of the six regiments which will arrive at Calcutta will be required for the protection of Bengal alone, without the power of moving beyond the confines of that Presidency, and, therefore, they will have no disposable force for retrieving affairs at the other provinces. Of these six regiments three must, at the earliest convenient moment, be sent back to their previous stations—one to Madras and two to Bombay—we must not run the risk of a movement in those Presidencies. Consequently of the eight regiments which we know have now been ordered to sail for India three will be detained in Bengal to supply the place of the corresponding number who will return to Madras and Bombay. Thus there will remain of the entire force of which we have as yet heard, only five regiments for any operations from Allahabad. I hold that five regiments are totally insufficient. And

1329
here I ought to observe that whatever force the Government may send out the difficulties of the Governor General in affording it the means of movement will not perhaps be insuperable, but they will be enormous; and unless he interferes in the business himself, looking into every detail and communicating personally with the officers intrusted with the duty of furnishing transport for the troops, our measures will entirely fail. There is no use in having men if you cannot move them. In Bengal you cannot find horses to mount the cavalry, or for the purposes of the artillery. It is absolutely necessary that the horses should be sent from hence; and it is most desirable that you should at the same time give orders at the Cape and in Australia for the forwarding to India of all horses fit for the service of the cavalry and artillery. But I shall assume that these five regiments have all reached Allahabad. They will not, however, be there by the 1st of November. That is the day on which they will arrive at Calcutta; and, having obtained the means of transport, they cannot possibly get to Allahabad before the 1st of January. This force will be wholly inadequate to enter without cavalry or artillery into a country with from 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 of inhabitants, full of disbanded troops, and containing the really military population of India—the Rohilla population. I say that your force should consist of at least nine regiments of infantry, three regiments of cavalry, and six batteries of artillery. Upon a late occasion Calcutta was left with only one battery of six guns, and although it is contrary to all our previous notions, it will be necessary, for the first time, to send artillery to India. And now comes another difficulty. The gun-carriages made here will be of no use there, and unless you send out orders to Madras and Bombay to provide gun-carriages, those made in this country will crack in pieces, and your guns will be lost. My Lords, I think I should fail in my duty if I did not say most decidedly that I do not think it sufficient to act on one line of operations only. There will be on the right bank of the Sutlej a force which may maintain its own, but which will be in jeopardy in the midst of a great population very warlike and very hostile, and I hold it essential that there should be a movement of troops by the line of the Indus and the Sutlej, which may connect itself with the force from Allahabad, and crush all opposition between those two points. This force
1330
should be equal to that proceeding from Allahabad. And more, I hold it to be most expedient, wise, and necessary, to go yet further, and to have some reserve of perhaps two European regiments—one reserve at Allahabad, and another at Sukkur on the other line of operations I have indicated—to which some Native regiments might be joined who might be relied on for the purpose of completing the communications, of sending up supplies, and protecting the rear of the army. And now, my Lords, what force is required? Five regiments we have for the operation from Allahabad. If all the troops now in China are sent to India, those five regiments would supply the infantry force required for the movement from the side of Bengal. I assume that three regiments could be spared from Bombay for the movement up the Indus. You require, therefore, in addition to the eight infantry regiments now to be sent out to the five from China, ten regiments of infantry, six of cavalry, and twelve batteries of artillery; and with these troops you must send horses, or they will he immovable. I firmly believe that, if Parliament and the Government will reinforce the army of India to the extent I have suggested, you may with absolute certainty—subject to those unforeseen accidents which befall all military operations—calculate that, by the end of April, the authority of the British Government will be firmly re-established in every part of the upper provinces. But, if you act in a different way—if you act undecidedly—if you think there is nothing in it, and that it will die out of itself—if you are not determined to put forth your whole strength, and crush this rebellion against your dominion, which threatens your existence in India as conquerors, you may depend upon it you will have entailed upon you campaign after campaign, and the suspense which will affect the minds of the whole people of India will imperil your rule, and destroy your character and authority in India. My Lords, I do not believe there will be any indisposition on the part of Parliament to support the Government, if the Government take the right view of the present state of things. It is for them to decide. I trust that they will prove worthy of the difficulties of their position, and of the greatness of the danger in which we are all involved, and that, by coming forward in a manner to maintain the national character and the public interests, they will give permanent security to our Indian empire, as well as honour—

1331
which I shall not grudge them—for themselves. What I wish to know from the noble Earl is, what measures the Government now intend to take for the reinforcement of the army of India, and whether it is their intention to give, at the earliest period—that is, within three days—official information on the subject.
EARL GRANVILLE: I think the noble Earl was somewhat unjust to Her Majesty's Government in the beginning of his observations. I am not aware that any information has been sought for which has been refused by the Government. Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to explain as fully as they can the events which have occurred in the East. There will be no difficulty in giving every information, either with regard to that which has been already received, or that which may be expected this evening or to-morrow, an official summary of which will give full information to the country. I assure your Lordships, once for all—because there are rumours about that the Government possess disastrous intelligence, which they are not willing to communicate—that the object of the Government is not to conceal the real state of affairs, whatever that state may be. I would go at once into the history of all that we know, but I have very little to tell, for the public have been put in possession by electric telegraph of the whole substance of what we know. The Government have only received three or four official communications by electric telegraph, namely, by Malta, Marseilles, and Trieste, all agreeing, in substance, with that published by the ordinary channels of information, and the only addition I can make to it is, that the last telegraph received states that the Punjab is perfectly quiet. I can assure the noble Earl that the Government do not treat this matter lightly. They consider this as a most serious question, and one most seriously to be considered, and they hold that it is their duty to take every precaution in their power, and to treat the matter as one of importance. But when the noble Earl talks of calamity, disgrace, and disaster, I cannot say that the Government share in that opinion. Whatever they may think of this serious crisis, they are not disposed to prophesy, and I think that the noble Earl himself, notwithstanding all his experience, would act more wisely and more safely for the public, if he satisfied himself with giving his opinion upon the facts he knows, and not upon facts based upon his imagination and upon the probability of
1332
what is likely to take place. Of course, any suggestions from the noble Earl, if not followed, will always receive, as they deserve, the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to those military details upon which the noble Earl has entered, I am incompetent to go into them, and even my noble Friend (Lord Panmure), and the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) behind me, however competent, will, perhaps, not think it convenient or desirable to follow him into those details. But so far as we are acquainted with what the Governor General has done—and I now speak for Her Majesty's Government—we are perfectly satisfied and entirely approve every act brought to our knowledge which has been taken by the Governor General in dealing with these events. In regard to the Government at home, they will not neglect to take every precaution to strengthen the hands of the Governor General. There is a notion, which may, perhaps, cause additional anxiety, that the Government possess information with regard to particular persons, but with respect to whom we have no information whatever. I regret to say, that the melancholy news is too true that General Anson has died from cholera at Kurnaul; but the Government has not received information of the death or illness of any other person. Your Lordships who knew the character of General Anson, and who appreciated his abilities, his sound understanding, his clear judgment, and that presence of mind which is equally valuable in civil as well as military matters, will feel the great regret that the Government entertain at the death of General Anson. I think that the Governor General has acted judiciously in his temporary appointment of Sir Patrick Grant; and I am grateful for the noble Earl's approval of the sending out of Sir Colin Campbell. Whatever may be the course taken in his selection, every one must think that infinite credit is due to that gallant officer in being ready to start for India within a few hours after he was informed that his services were required. I am not aware I can give the noble Earl any further information. The noble Earl argues as if there were a general insurrection, but it has not extended beyond the army. As to the regiments that have been disbanded, we have no knowledge that they had any communication with the rebels. Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest information to Parliament and the country; they will act with

1333
the greatest vigour on the present emergency; but they will not give way to unfounded apprehensions of any great calamity and disaster.
VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, that the condition of the Bengal army was one to which his attention had some time since been directed, and he had no hesitation in saying that it was the worst in the world. The want of discipline which had recently been manifested in its ranks was a circumstance of no unusual occurrence. He had served with that army, and he was therefore in a position to state the reasons to which the difference which existed between it and the Bombay and Madras armies was to be attributed. The system of appointing Native officers in the Bengal army he looked upon as one of the causes of that absence of discipline by which it was characterized, and probably of the mutiny which had lately taken place. Those officers, he might add, were, generally speaking, selected, not for their merit or fitness to command, and were raised from the ranks when they were old men, and when disaffection at not having previously been enabled to obtain their discharge from the service had, to a considerable extent, operated upon their minds. In the Bombay and Madras armies, upon the contrary, a different system prevailed. The havildars in those armies were selected for their intelligence and activity, and were recommended for promotion to that rank by the commanding officers of their regiments. But, be that as it might, nobody could deny that the discipline of the Bengal army was of the worst possible description, and in that light it had been looked upon by the late General Anson, who had in consequence, ever since he had assumed the command of the army in India, deemed it to be his duty to represent to the Board of Directors the absolute necessity of increasing the European force in India—a recommendation to which, however, so far as the Government was concerned, no sort of attention had been paid. In proof of the statement that the discipline of the Bengal army was of the worst description, he might inform the House, that in the year 1849, shortly after the first occupation of the Punjab, when he commanded on, the frontier, two Bengal regiments mutinied; and when he returned home in 1850, he expressed the greatest disapprobation of the condition of the troops of which that army was composed. He was, however, told that, no matter how just his opinions upon the subject might
1334
be, he must not give utterance to them in public, inasmuch as it was extremely undesirable that foreign nations should be acquainted with the real state of affairs. The result, at all events, was, that no steps were taken in the matter by the Board of Directors, and that the discipline of the Bengal army continued to be of that character to which he had drawn their Lordships' attention. He had had the honour of commanding the Punjab division of the Bombay army, and he had no hesitation in saying, that nothing could be more praiseworthy than the conduct which the troops composing that division had exhibited. To show their Lordships how different was the conduct of the Bengal army, he might state a circumstance which took place at the siege of Mooltan, and which was reported to him by an officer who was present on the occasion. A covering party was ordered into the trenches, and some disturbance having occurred among them during the night, the officer to whom he referred went to ascertain its cause. He found that it arose from the fact that some soldiers of the Bengal army had been endeavouring to prevent the men belonging to one of the Bombay regiments from digging in the trenches in discharge of their duty, observing that they were sepoys, and should fight, but would not work. Yet the officer in command of those Bengalese had not ordered them into confinement, notwithstanding that they had not done one bit of the work which had been ordered by the engineers; and it was not until the officer threatened to have two of the Bengal men, who were the ringleaders, shot, that they could be got to retire. He might also add, that the morning after the assault of Mooltan, Mr. Lake asked the officer in command of one of the pickets to post a sergeant and twelve men at one of the gates of the town, to prevent any one going in or coming out. The officer did so; but not long after the men had taken up their position, three officers of the Bengal Engineers came up, one of them having a loaded gun, and bearing between them something covered by a piece of tarpaulin, which they represented to be engineering stores. They were, however, told by the guard that they could not pass, and, the tarpaulin having been raised, that which they were in reality carrying was found to be plunder. The circumstance was not reported, lest it should be ascribed to jealousy; it, however, Showed the want of discipline in that army, and that the

1335
officers did not perform their duty as those of the Bombay army did. But it was unnecessary to cite further instances in proof of the accuracy of the opinion which he had expressed in reference to the spirit which prevailed among the troops of the Bengal army. He trusted, now that a fitting opportunity of dealing with the subject presented itself, Her Majesty's Government would become alive to the necessity of reorganizing that army, and placing the whole system upon which it was based, upon an entirely different footing. As to the existing mutiny in India, he could not find in the fact that certain cartridges had been issued, a sufficient reason for its occurrence. It was, indeed, difficult to ascertain to what the breaking out of that mutiny was immediately to be attributed; but of one thing he felt assured—namely, that the Government would act very culpably if they did not pay due attention to the representations which had been made to them in reference to the want of discipline which prevailed among the regiments of the Bengal army.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, he attributed the existing discontent in the Bengal army to the fact, that men of high caste were exclusively employed in the Bengal service, and in that opinion, he might add, he was confirmed by a letter which he had received from Dr. Buist, the editor of the Bombay Times, distinctly attributing one of the causes of the mutiny to the policy of the Indian Government in selecting men of high caste to the exclusion of every other caste. In Bombay, on the contrary, men of high and low caste were employed without distinction, and no difficulty had been found in their acting together; and, although 10,000 men had been sent from that province to the Persian Gulf, a disposition to mutiny had not even in a single instance been evinced among those troops. The mutiny which occurred in 1825 at Barrackpore, was altogether to be attributed to causes having their origin in the prejudices of caste.

THE SWISS LEGION.

  PRESENTATION OF PETITION.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY presented a Petition from the Officers of the late British Swiss Legion, complaining that the agreement under which they were enrolled by the British Government has been violated in respect of their Pay, and praying for Redress; and said: My Lords, I gave notice some time since of my in-
  1336
  tention to bring under the notice of your Lordships a case which, primâ facie, seems to me one of hardship as regards the petitioners in the matter, who were officers in the Swiss Legion. I wish particularly that your Lordships may be persuaded, and Her Majesty's Government convinced, that I have no intention whatever of making any attack on her Majesty's Ministers, or bringing any accusation against them. The case is simply one of no less than forty-seven officers of the Swiss Legion, who complain that certain articles under which they were enlisted have not been faithfully fulfilled by her Majesty's Government; and that they have not received the amount of pay which they expected, and to which, as they allege, they were entitled under those articles. The whole case depends on the accuracy of the statement made by the petitioners; and this being so, my Lords, I think I cannot do better than read their petition to the House. It is as follows:—
  "THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE OFFICERS OF THE LATE BRITISH SWISS LEGION, COMPRISING THE 1ST AND 2nd EATTALIONS OF THE 1ST REGIMENT,
  "Humbly showeth,—That in the months of May, June, and July, 1855, your petitioners were enrolled (pursuant to the Foreign Enlistment Act) in the above-named legion, under certain articles of enlistment then printed and published, at Bern, in Switzerland, dated Schelestadt, 1855, and bearing the signatures of
  "HANS SULZBERGER, Colonel.
  CHARLES EDWARD FUNK, Lieut. Colonel.
  JOHN BAUMGARTNER, Captain (Staff).
  "These gentlemen, formed under the presidency of Colonel Dixon, the commission appointed by the English Government to enlist and organize the Legion; the articles alluded to were promulgated by Sir G. Gordon, the British minister at Berne, Colonel Dickson, the said president of the Swiss Committee, and by the members of that body, and your petitioners were sworn in under those articles and under the precise terms and stipulations therein contained.
  "That such articles contained amongst other things the following stipulations:—
  "Art. 2.—'That the officers and men should be enlisted for the duration of the war, and for twelve months after the ratification of peace.'
  "Art. 25.—'That upon disbandment the officers should receive fifteen months' full pay, and the non-commissioned officers and men the full pay of two years, according to a certain tariff therein set forth, and subject to certain reductions if retained in service after the ratification of peace.'
  "That in July following the British Government caused certain other articles, without date, to be printed and published, bearing the signature of Colonel Charles Sheffield Dickson, wherein it is stipulated by
  "Art. 1.—'That the officers and men should be enlisted for the duration of the war, and for one year after the ratification of peace.'
  "Art. 10.—'That on disbandment the officers

  1337
  should be allowed three months' pay to carry them home.'
  "These terms do not appear to differ from those of the original articles, as thereby also your petitioners would be entitled to fifteen months' pay after the ratification of peace.
  "That upon disbandment your petitioners of course claimed the fulfilment of the terms under which they enlisted, but the War Office refused to recognise the original articles, terming them unauthorized and spurious. They offered the three months' pay, which your petitioners accepted, under protest, and an arrangement was then made that, should your honourable House sanction the fulfilment of the articles of enlistment, the War Office would make no further objection to carrying out such stipulations.
  "That a further offer of three months' pay has since been made to some of your petitioners, which in most instances has been rejected.
  "That your petitioners were led to believe the accredited articles issued by the military agents of the British Government in Switzerland, and promulgated by the British minister at Berne, and never doubted the honourable fulfilment of the articles of stipulation.
  "That your petitioners, numbering forty-seven officers of the British Swiss Legion, and forming the 1st and 2nd battalions thereof, were legally enlisted and sworn in under the said original printed articles, issued at the English Ambassador's office, at Berne, no other articles being at that time in existence, and that it was not until three months after their enlistment that the second articles were published."
  Now, my Lords, whether the articles relied on by the petitioners be spurious or not, assuming to be true what is stated by Colonel Baumgartner, and his evidence on the matter is attested by various local authorities, there must have been some articles printed and promulgated early in May, 1855, under the supervision of Sir G. Gordon, Colonel Dickson, and the other members of the Swiss Committee; and this must be true, that those officers having enlisted in the month of June or the beginning of July, before the second articles were issued by the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, must have been enlisted under that first code. The question, then, naturally arises, whether the Government should not carry out this first convention, the non-fulfilment of which did not arise from any fault of those officers, and which they alleged they believed to be bonâ fide, and not a spurious one. To show that this convention was not a spurious one, but had all the authority of the Swiss Committee, Colonel Baumgartner made a declaration, of which the following is a copy;—
  "I, John Baumgartner, late a major of the British Swiss Legion, and one of the Swiss committee appointed by the British Government to organize the legion, do hereby declare that the military convention under which the officers
  1338
  were to be enrolled was drawn by me and submitted to the other members of the committee, and as several articles therein remained undecided upon, as Colonel Dickson was waiting, as he pretended, further instructions from his Government, it was agreed to publish extracts of such articles as had been agreed to by Colonel Dickson, and such extracts were accordingly prepared by me (as was afterwards also the full convention), but altered and corrected by the other members of the committee, as the first and second drafts thereof now in my hands, with alterations and corrections in the handwriting of Colonel Dickson, will prove, and such extracts fixed the allowance of pay for retraite. It was found necessary to do this, as we could not begin the levy until some conditions were published.
  The whole commission gave their sanction for the printing and publishing of such extract after it was corrected and approved by Colonel Dickson. The secretary to the commission superintended the printing, and the first printed copies were handed to Sir G. Gordon, the British Minister at Berne, others were taken to the recruiting office, by which, as also by the members of the commission, Colonels Sulzberger and Funk, the same were promulgated; all costs and expenses of the printing were made on account of the British government, after the bill was approved of by the commission; the extract was printed in May, 1855, and between that time and August following, when Colonel Dickson's convention was published, more than 30 officers were enrolled. The extract of the first convention was never revoked or disavowed.
  "Given under my hand and seal, at my residence, at Schelestadt, department Lower Rhine, January 4th, 1857.
  (L.S.) "JOHN BAUMGARTNER."
  In addition to that, my Lords, we have the affidavit of Captain Grussy, which is as follows:—
  "AFFIDAVIT OP CAPTAIN GRUSSY.
  "Appeared personally, Charles Louis Grussy, an officer of the British Swiss Legion, and made 'oath, that in the month of May, 1855, deponent was acting as lieutenant in the British Swiss Legion, and in that capacity was detached for Berne, when the British Swiss Legion was about to be established, and as the recruiting was against the Swiss law, deponent would have been liable to arrest, but the British Consul, Sir G. Gordon, procured for him the authority of an attaché of the British embassy, with the customary privileges and exemptions. That deponent in the performance of his duties was witness when the articles of enlistment were printed, at the office of M. Jenny, Son, at Berne, on the 26th of May, 1855, and was also witness to the promulgation of those articles amongst the Swiss officers by the officials of the British consulate, and deponent was ordered by the English consul, Sir G. Gordon, to promulgate those articles so printed at Berne, and dated 'Schelestadt, 1855.'

  "Sworn at Dovor, in the county of Kent, this 8th day of October, 1856.

  GRUSSY, Captain.

  "Before me,
  "W. H. PAYN,
  "A Commissiener to administer oaths in Chancery in England, ex-Mayor of Dovor."
  Now, my Lords, having read these documents, I can only say, that the case is on the word of one man against that of another. We are told by Colonel Baumgartner that the articles, the fulfilment of which these forty-seven officers demand, had not only his approval, but that of the whole Commission, who gave their sanction to the printing and publishing of the extracts now relied on by those officers. No other rules were printed before the month of July, so that those men who entered the Legion and took the oath in the month of June, must have had shown to them this code, which is now declared to be spurious by my noble Friend, the Secretary of War, and the English Government. As regards the authenticity of the extracts in question, that question is, as I said before, one which rests upon the word of one man, as against that of another. But, my Lords, the main question involved in this difference between Her Majesty's Government and those forty-seven officers is, indeed, a very serious one, both as affects the honour of this country and her future policy. On an occasion like the present, when the extent of our military resources must naturally engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government and every member of your Lordships' House, the consideration of a question like that the subject of this petition is one not altogether foreign to the business which has just been before us. Some day or other it may be thought desirable to again enlist foreigners. When the question of foreign enlistment was first mooted in this House, I was one of those who expressed regret that such a measure should be resorted to; but the late war showed me the very great difficulty which we should have to encounter in carrying on hostilities on an extensive scale, and raising armies equal to those put in the field by great military Powers, if we were compelled to confine ourselves to the voluntary system of enlistment. Therefore, my Lords, I think it most important that this country should continue to uphold its good name with foreigners, and Lam of opinion, that the Swiss are the best foreigners that we could, in times of emergency, enlist into our service; because there is not in Switzerland that opprobrium to enlistment in foreign armies that exists as a feeling in other countries. The Swiss have for centuries served in foreign armies, and such service is in that country esteemed an honour. I would then, my Lords, say that, not only as a point of honour, but
  1340
  also as one of policy it is incumbent on our Government to keep faith with foreigners enlisted in Her Majesty's service. I would go further, my Lords, and, say, that if, under the difficulties of war, and acting as it were under a fear of doing that which was illegal, any of our agents smuggled a code of this kind into the pockets of Swiss officers, still we ought to be most scrupulously careful in fulfilling all engagements which foreigners believed we made with them when inducing them to enter out service. These forty-seven officers believed that they were enlisted under a particular code. Whether that code be spurious or not is another question. The entire claim of the petitioners only amounts to £2,700; and I cannot believe that such a sum is of moment as compared with the importance of leaving Switzerland and all other foreign nations under the impression that this country is anxious to do her duty towards those who responded to her call in the hour of need. Having said thus much, my Lords, I shall make no further observations on this petition till I shall have heard my noble Friend, the Secretary for War, reply to what is, in my opinion, at least a primâ facie case.
  LORD PANMUREsaid, he did not find any fault with his noble Friend for introducing this case to their Lordships, but he thought the fact that this petition was signed by only forty-seven out of the large number of officers belonging to the Swiss Legion would show that its complaint was by no means a general one. He assured their Lordships that, in settling the claims of both officers and men of these foreign Corps, there had been, on his part, every disposition not only to act up to the terms of the engagements which we had made with them, but even to extend the generosity of this country beyond that limit, in order to show that we appreciated the service which they had rendered to us. Of course in the settlement of these claims, many disputes occurred both with officers and men but; if his noble Friend had been at all aware of the infinite care which had been taken to adjust these matters; and of the almost unanimity with which they bad been adjusted, and the corps disbanded with the entire satisfaction both of officers and men, he would not in any way have questioned the disposition of the Government to deal fairly with ail these persons. But there was a peculiarity about these forty-seven officers which he must

  1341
  explain. He assured the House that he had considered the case with reference to the position of both parties, without regard to the trumpery sum which they claimed, with a view of settling their claims according to what was right, but so as not to awaken claims in others for which there was no ground. It was asserted by these officers that they were enlisted—that was not a proper term—that they accepted service under Her Majesty upon certain conditions. Colonel Dickson was the officer charged with carrying out the Foreign Enlistment Act, so far as concerned the raising of a Swiss Legion. Early in May, he (Lord Panmure) sent that officer to Switzerland, giving him in this country a letter of service, in which were recorded the terms upon which he thought it right that that regiment should be raised with regard to both officers and men. As this enlistment for the British army was not recognized by the law of Switzerland, Colonel Dickson established, at a place on the frontier, a committee of three officers, consisting of Colonel Sulzberger, Lieutenant Colonel Funk, and Major Baumgartner, of which he was himself the president; and at this place the formation of the Legion was carried on. Afterwards Colonel Dickson went to Berne, and there, in conjunction with the committee, he drew up articles of service, and directed that they should be printed as they had been drawn up. This direction was not carried out. One member of the committee, Major Baumgartner, took upon himself to have printed what he called an extract from these articles, and to this he forged the signatures of the other two members of the committee, both of whom now denied that they gave him any authority to append their names to this spurious extract. In the course of time Colonel Dickson saw this "extract" in print, and he immediately took steps to deny its authenticity, and to explain to every officer who had been engaged under it that these were not the terms upon which service under her Majesty was to be taken; and up to the disbandment of the legion no officer complained that he was not satisfied upon this matter. That, however, was not all. The spurious extract appeared to have been issued at the end of May or beginning of June. Colonel Dickson immediately took means, by writing to the Swiss newspapers, and by sending them copies of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and of the genuine articles, to establish its falsity: and, so
  1342
  far as appeared from documentary evidence, it was impossible that any officer could have been deceived by it after the beginning of July, some time after which date it was that the large majority of those who had signed this petition took service. It appeared to him that this was a case which had been got up by English lawyers. At the disbandment of the legion, some officers who thought they had claims under these articles communicated with Colonel Hackett, who conducted the disbandment abroad; but, by conversing with them, he satisfied them that they had no such claims. These officers, however, appeared to have fallen into the hands of English lawyers, who had given them bad advice; because, upon being disbanded, all the officers, these petitioners included, had signed a receipt stating that they had received their gratuity, and had no further claims upon the British Government. In their petition, these forty-seven officers stated that they signed this receipt under protest, but he could find no trace of the existence of such a protest, and he believed that the whole matter had been got up since. He was confirmed in this view by the fact that, after the claim had been raised, he received a letter from a solicitor and ex-mayor of Dovor, intimating that the matter would be brought before Parliament, but that he was open to a compromise, if he (Lord Panmure) would accept it. He refused to accept that offer, and in doing so he thought he had acted well, both with regard to the honour and credit of this country, and with regard to that responsibility with which he was bound to look to the expenditure of the public money which Parliament so liberally placed at the disposal of the Government for carrying on the war. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) that it was absolutely necessary that no idea should exist in the minds of these foreign officers that faith had not been kept with them, and that they should have no feeling which could deter them from serving the Government on a future occasion. He had much gratification in informing his noble Friend and the House that one officer whose name was attached to this petition, Major Hafelin, had only that morning Written to the Foreign Office to say that, having heard of the state of affairs in India, he and a great many others were most willing to re-enter the service of the British Government, and that no doubt, if England required them, she could call

  1343
  from the mountains of Switzerland all those who had formerly so zealously enrolled themselves under her standard. He (Lord Panmure) had received similar offers of service from many other officers, and he was quite convinced that in disbanding the Swiss Legion at the close of the late war we left upon their minds the impression that England had dealt fairly with them, as they had dealt fairly with England. He could not forbear from stating the following facts. The formation of the Legions commenced in the month of May, 1855. In the month of August, 1855, 4,000 of these soldiers, thoroughly equipped, thoroughly armed, and thoroughly drilled, were reviewed by Her Majesty at Shorncliffe, and in less than six weeks afterwards 6,000 of the Legion were transported to the neighbourhood of the seat of war ready for action. He had received the highest testimonials of their conduct, both in this country and at Smyrna. With reference to the general question of foreign enlistment, he agreed with his noble Friend that so long as we had no conscription in this country we must not give up the power of enlisting foreign troops in our service. As the noble Earl had observed, we were bound to deal with them fairly and honestly; but at the same time, as Minister of War, he was bound to see that we did not deal with them on any but terms of fair justice, and to protect the taxpayers of the country from paying more than was right even for the best article.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYadmitted that in some respects the noble Lord had answered many of his remarks satisfactorily, but he had not explained how his own articles differed from those which were supposed to be spurious. The articles as stated in the petition could be construed in two ways. The officers of the Legion believed that they entered our service for one year after the ratification of peace; but the Minister of War thought that that was entirely a mistake, and that he had the power of discharging them before that time, and also of retaining them to the expiration of it if he thought fit. That was the point in dispute between the officers and the War Office. He believed that the articles might be construed both ways; but any way those officers who had entered our service under this idea, and who had been deceived by the officials of the Government, ought, he contended, to be indemnified, and to be paid the sums which
  1344
  they expected to receive. He was astonished to hear that Colonel Funk had repudiated his signature, for he held in his hand a letter from that gentleman's solicitor, in which he said not one word of repudiation of the signature, but that he had received within the last few weeks instructions from Colonel Funk to institute an action at law against Colonel Dickson for his repeated slanders against his character. With respect to the receipts in full of all claims given by the officers, all he had to say was, that when the Minister at War gave the officers a gratuity of three months' pay it was accompanied by a letter from the War Office, stating that it was given without prejudice to any future claims, and they gave a receipt, therefore, without prejudice to future claims. There was such discrepancy and such contradiction in the evidence that he was perfectly unable to say any more upon the subject, but must leave it to the sagacity of the noble Lord to go to the bottom of it.
  LORD PANMUREsaid, he had received the following letter from Colonels Funk and Sulzberger in respect to their signatures to the article:—
  "The undersigned have the honour to state that the so-called extract from the Convention, dated Schelestadt, 1855, was made without their co-operation; that it is said that the same has been arranged by Colonel Dickson and Major Baumgartner, and that during the absence of both (undersigned) their signature has been attached to it, and has been published.
  "We have, &c.,
  "H. SULZBERGER, Colonel.
  "K. FUNK, Lieutenant Colonel."
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEdenied that it was at all necessary for this country to have recourse to the employment of foreign troops in time of war if proper measures were taken by our Government at the outset. On the contrary, we might always raise men enough among our own population both for defensive and for offensive purposes. It was the stinginess of the Government at the beginning, and their unwillingness to offer a sufficient sum of money to tempt our own people to enter into our military service, which rendered it necessary to turn to foreign countries for men. This description of force had never been found so satisfactory as our own troops, and by this means of increasing our armies we ran the risk of getting into collision with foreign Governments. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a Return, already presented to the House of Commons, showing the cost of rais-

  1345
  ing and maintaining the Foreign Legions (which was afterwards agreed to).
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that it was a most impolitic thing to have recourse to foreign aid. It would be almost better to raise troops by conscription at home.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.

IMPROVEMENTS IN ST. JAMES'S PARK.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBUEY: I rise to call the attention of the House to the correspondence between the Treasury and the Board of Works on the subject of the Ornamental Water in St. James's Park, and to the expenditure which has taken place, by way of improving, as it is said, that locality. When, six weeks ago, I asked my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), what the expense of that work would be and presumed to guess it would amount to £14,000, I was triumphantly answered by my noble Friend, who said that it would only cost £11,200. He further stated that there would be a great advantage and saving of public money by the expenditure now going on, as £900 a year now paid to the Chelsea Waterworks for water would thereby be saved. I further observed—and this is a much more serious part of the subject—that the expense had taken place without any authority whatever from Parliament; that a correspondence must, I suppose, have passed between the Treasury and the First Commissioner for Works, but that there appeared nothing in the Estimates to lead me to suppose that the money asked for had been voted by Parliament. Assuming these points, which were to a certain extent affirmed by the speech of my noble Friend opposite, I asked for returns showing why the expense had been undertaken so urgently and suddenly without the consent of Parliament, and I asked for the correspondence on the subject between the Treasury and the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner for Works. My noble Friend promised this six weeks ago, and repeated that promise three weeks ago. I moved for it a week ago, but I have not since seen or heard anything about it. Fortunately, however, there is a correspondence which answered my purpose moved for by Sir Francis Baring in the House of Commons, and to this I beg to draw your Lordships' attention. My noble Friend opposite said that the ques-
  1346
  tion was a sanitary question, and that the expenditure was made on sanitary grounds. He said that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone had been besieged by protests against the unwholesome state of the water in St. James's Park. But Sir Benjamin Hall does not add to the correspondence any prayers from petitioners who, being within the reach of the miasma from this lake, complained of its unwholesome exhalations. Now, the public health was in peril, and that no time was to be lost, would have been the only justification for so unconstitutional a course as the expenditure of £11,000 upon the lake in St. James's Park, and £4,000 upon the drain, without the previous sanction of Parliament. But what is the history given by Sir Benjamin Hall himself of these works in these lakes, that of the Serpentine and that in St. James's Park? He says that originally there was a limpid stream flowing from Bayswater into the Serpentine, which, as he correctly says, was now turned into a sewer. That was a feeder, to a certain extent, of the water in St. James's Park. Naturally, then, as the population increased, these lakes required a supply of water from a different source. Accordingly, in 1840, the Government applied to the Chelsea Waterworks, who agreed to supply the Serpentine with a certain quantity of water at £600 a year. This is to be saved, it is said. But I am puzzled how £900, which my noble Friend says is to be saved out of the transaction, is to be saved out of £600. If my noble Friend can solve that problem I trust he will be Minister of Finance for this country to the last days of his life. It appeared to most people, and also to Sir Benjamin Hall, that the one obvious way of correcting the evil was to divert the polluted water derived from the drains which flowed into the Serpentine, and admit only the pure. But this alone was not sufficiently ambitious for the mind of the Chief Commissioner of Works. He went to other persons and asked what a much larger operation would cost—that of draining the lakes and paving them with a sort of concrete. Now, in 1835 the late Sir John Rennie was consulted on the subject, and he estimated the cost of purifying the lakes at £12,000. At a subsequent period, Mr. Mann, the gardener of the parks, estimated the cost at £25,000. These estimates were made during the modest and methodical Government of Lord John. Russell, when the Earl of Carlisle was at

  1347
  the Board of Works. But even these were rejected by Sir Charles Trevelyan. A very different answer was given to Sir Benjamin Hall. We are not now under a modest and methodical Government like that to which I have referred; we are under the rollicking rule of the noble Viscount, and the management of the metropolis is confided to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone. Under these circumstances, Mr. Mann's estimate for cleansing the Serpentine has risen to no less than £110,500, while that, for diverting the sewer is £22,000, and this does not include the lake in St. James's Park, for which a sum of £28,900 more is charged, and for diverting the sewer which runs under the Horse Guards £4,000 more; on the whole, £165,900 for these colossal operations of Sir Benjamin Hall. There is one thing I should have liked to see, and that is the face of Sir Charles Trevelyan when that estimate was handed in to him. If that face had had the power of Medusa's face when Sir Benjamin Hall handed it in, it would have turned him to stone, and we should at once have had a ready-made statue of the right hon. Baronet to immortalise him. The sum included in this estimate, I may remind your Lordships, is sufficient to pay four regiments, and to keep 4000 or 5000 bayonets for a whole year. I think it must be difficult for even a Whig Government to extract much money from Sir Charles Trevelyan. I know from experience that it is impossible to a Tory one. I think one of the greatest triumphs of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it was an attempt in which I failed, was in succeeding in strengthening the staff of the Foreign Office, which was so much undermanned; but not only Sir Charles Trevelyan, but Mr. Wilson was startled at the prospect of £165,000, and came forward with the common-place suggestion that they should begin by diverting the Bayswater sewer. The right hon. Baronet then went and asked for other estimates, on which Mr. Mann reduced the estimate to £65,000, being £100,000 less than the first. This is only important as showing how much money men can spend when they are perfectly reckless. Well, on the 27th of August, 1856, the Treasury gave leave to spend £16,000 on cleansing the lake in St. James's Park. But Sir Benjamin Hall said that the Commissioners of Sewers must divert the sewer, so that after all the real evil still remained to correct. Then
  1348
  there was a hiatus in the correspondence. But on the 27th August the Treasury say that they will make the advance necessary for the purpose in anticipation of the vote to be taken in the Estimates of the following year. But I do not find, as there should be, any letter from the Pay Office authorising that statement, and stating from what fund the money was to be taken. This, then, raises a very serious constitutional question—whether it should be permitted for any Minister, however urgent the case may be, to spend money without the authority of Parliament? I deny the urgency in this case. How is the pond situated? There is Buckingham Palace at one end; there is Carlton Terrace on the north side, Birdcage Walk, and the Wellington Barracks on the south, and on the east there are the official residences of many of the Ministers and the public offices. I should like to see any of the complaints that come from any of these parties. Now I will mention the names of some of those who live in that neighbourhood, and the House will judge whether these persons have suffered much from the miasma. I will take my noble Friends the Earl of Clarendon, the Duke of Leinster, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Prussian Minister, Earl Lonsdale, Lord Overstone, and others, and I will ask my noble Friend opposite whether he sees in any of those gentlemen the signs of premature decay. Most of them are his intimate friends. Has he been alarmed for their lives? Can he state that any of these gentlemen or their neighbours have intimated any fear for their health, or any apprehensions of the value of their property being deteriorated in consequence of the state of the lake in St. James's Park? Then, what is the case with respect to Whitehall—the noble Viscount at the head of the Government having long lived there. The Comptroller of the Exchequer, I believe, lives in Birdcage Walk. I believe that there are no haunts more healthy than those of the squares in that locality. Therefore I cannot think what excuse the right hon. Baronet could have had to violate one of the most sacred rules of the constitution, not to spend a shilling without a vote in Parliament. The moment a Minister is allowed to divert money from one purpose to another, there is no reason why £5,000 or £10,000 voted for an object unanimously approved of, should not be applied to an object on which no two

  1349
  people had the same opinion. It is impossible to say what may be done by a daring Minister like the one at the head of the Government if this be permitted. He may get into one of those little disputes which sometimes arise in the course of his Administration. He may begin and carry on a war without asking Parliament for money or for leave to undertake it. And then when Parliament meets again, the Minister may turn, round to the House of Commons, as he has done, and say, "You owe me £500,000." I am sorry to say that the House of Commons was so treated, and what is more, that it submitted quietly to such treatment. What I object to is more money being asked for than is wanted. Money should be asked for on account, as works are proceeded with. That is the only way you can check public functionaries. In 1849, the late Lord Auckland thought it necessary that a dockyard should be established at Pembroke. In carrying out the works he exceeded the Estimates. The late Mr. Hume then moved a Resolution, which was adopted by the House of Commons, in which, after setting forth that the expenditure in the naval department had, for the years 1847–48 exceeded the appropriations by £300,000, and that that on the Pembroke dockyard was £52,000 in excess, it was declared that that House concurred in the opinion expressed by the Treasury with regard to the great excess of expenditure under the control of the Admiralty, and that it was of opinion that the proper course was to postpone the enrolment of men after the money voted by Parliament was expended, and not to engage in any fresh expenditure after that sum was exhausted. This is one of the Resolutions that had been adopted by the House of Commons, and it appears to me that nothing but recklessness or vanity could induce a Minister to disobey it. No reasonable sum of money for a useful purpose, if asked for in the ordinary way, would be refused by Parliament; and it is not because a Minister may have a particular fancy for one thing or another that he can, without consulting anybody, undertake such works as these. The right hon. Baronet in the present case, following his own caprice, has dipped his hand into the public pocket, trusting to the indulgence of Parliament for its repayment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought that his noble Friend had attached too
  1350
  much importance to the matter. The delay of which the noble Earl complained in the production of the papers for which he moved was occasioned by an irregularity. By some omission or another no formal order was given at the time the papers were moved for. The formal order was only given on the 6th July, and the papers were not in the hands of the printer on the 9th of July. The noble Earl had complained of the nature of the works in St. James's Park, and of the expense incurred in respect of them, without the assent of Parliament. He had, on a former occasion, complained of the character of the water, which he said would be dirtier instead of cleaner, and that the ducks would all die. Now, on the 19th of June there was a great thunder-storm, and the rain fell in such violence as to sweep a great deal of dirt on both sides into the lake, and consequently the lake remained for some time in a bad state. A few days after that occurrence his noble Friend gave notice that he would call their attention to the state of the water and the works generally carrying on in the park. The noble Earl no doubt felt that he had a triumphant case from the state of the water; but very soon after the water was purified; and it was now impossible for any one walking by the side of the lake not to see the improvement which had taken place. With regard to the strong point in the noble Earl's complaint, namely, the amount of expenditure upon those improvements without Parliamentary sanction, he begged to remind his noble Friend that since he had first brought the subject under the consideration of their Lordships no less than two discussions upon the matter had taken place in the other House of Parliament, and after a careful consideration of it, the right hon. Baronet himself having had an opportunity of explaining his conduct, the House of Commons was induced to acquiesce in the measure, and expressed the opinion generally that the right hon. Baronet had acted judiciously in having saved the country an expenditure of £5,000, and had effected most excellent arrangements. The question having been thus satisfactorily settled, he thought it rather too much to have the subject again opened. The Estimate having been agreed to by the other House it was scarcely competent for the noble Earl to renew the matter. He did not object to the noble Earl applying epithets generally to those from whom he differed, but at the same time he thought it

  1351
  somewhat unworthy of him to apply the words "rollicking rule" to the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. What he also complained of was, the noble Earl attacking civil servants of the Crown, who were not there to defend themselves. The noble Earl made an accusation against Sir Charles Trevelyan, in saying that while that officer was willing to afford every assistance to a Whig Government he was indisposed to give any aid to a Tory Government.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I said nothing whatever that could be considered disrespectful of Sir Charles Trevelyan. I stated that when I had the honour of a seat in the Cabinet there were many improvements in the Foreign Office, which, notwithstanding I had much trouble about, I was unable to have carried out. Those improvements were subsequently carried out by my noble Friend opposite, and nobody could be more rejoiced at it than myself. I stated that fact in connection with the assistance sought for from Sir Charles Trevelyan, but not in a manner disrespectful to Sir Charles Trevelyan.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that Sir Charles Trevelyan was quite right in the first instance to raise as many objections as possible to the expenditure of the public money. As the noble Earl had referred to the Government of which he formed a part, he might remind him, too, that there was a certain right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Government of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), and, nevertheless, the noble Earl the other night, apparently forgetting that fact, said that he could have no confidence in any Chancellor of the Exchequer who was of the Jewish persuasion. Whether the Jewish extraction of Mr. Disraeli weakened the confidence of the noble Earl in that right hon. Gentleman he did not know; but with regard to Sir Charles Trevelyan, he did not think that that distinguished civil servant ever asked whether an improvement emanated from Whig or Tory Government, but examined the proposal wholly on its own merits; nor did he think that any of the civil servant of the Crown were open to such a charge. In respect to the sanitary portion of the question, he was of opinion it was impossible that they could have a lake of water in a stagnant stinking state without it being unsalubrious to the people residing in its neighbourhood. The right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), while acting as Pre-
  1352
  sident of the Board of Health, had paid great attention to this subject, and was firmly convinced, by consultation with certain medical officers, that great inconvenience had arisen from the insalubrity of the water in the park. He dared to say he saw the matter in a different light from that of the noble Earl, who could spend half the year in the country; but he confessed he felt a sympathy for the 2,500,000 of his fellow-citizens who were crowded together in this vast city. St. James's Park was one of the few open places for the population to enjoy a little recreation in, and he believed it to be the duty of the Government to take every measure possible to render those public places salubrious as well as agreeable to them. He deplored that local patriotism which confined its attention to one particular part of the metropolis. For example, they hardly knew in the west-end what they were doing at the east-end. When an arrangement had been made with the Crown as to the Crown revenues he thought that the Government were doubly bound to see those public parks kept up in a proper and salubrious state. He was quite sure that the public generally approved of the strenuous efforts which the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Works was making for the improvement of the metropolitan parks.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had never heard any complaints made of the unhealthiness of the water in the park even during the visitation of cholera. He thought that a constitutional offence had been committed in a misappropriation of the public money by diverting it from the purposes for which it was intended, and applying it to other purposes for which it was not voted. If money had been wanted for this purpose, it might have been obtained in a legitimate manner. No doubt Sir Benjamin Hall's conduct, his spirit, and his desire to discharge the functions of President of the Board of Health entitled him to the gratitude of the people of this country, and it was natural that he should bring into the Board of Works the feelings which had been excited in the office he had left. Sir Benjamin Hall came into office in July, and he did not blame him for not coming to Parliament in the short interval between July and August; but when he found that these improvements were required, he ought to have applied to the Treasury to make an advance from the fund placed at their disposal for civil contingencies. He

  1353
  might thus have obtained funds enough to complete these improvements instead of pursuing a course which was certainly not constitutional. Their Lordships were not free from the obligation to watch over the expenditure of the public money with as much jealousy as if they were representatives of the people. They would find that in 1856 the Board of Works were authorized to undertake the formation of the sewer. The natural course was in 1856 to have laid the whole question before Parliament. He believed that some inconvenience was occasioned by the sudden death of an officer of the department, but this would not account for adding several thousand pounds to the former outlay. The matter was brought before Parliament after the event, nor would the Vote of 1856 affect the misappropriation of money in 1855. Her Majesty's Government in the other House had admitted the irregularity of the whole proceeding, but the noble Earl had passed it over with graceful negligence, as if it were a matter of no importance.
  EARL GRANVILLEhad admitted that the subject was one which might very properly occupy the attention of their Lordships.

THE CONSOLIDATED CRIMINAL STATUTES.

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthen moved the Second Reading of the series of Bills which, he said, had been framed with the view of carrying out the consolidation of the criminal statutes. Those Bills comprised the Offences of Larceny, &c.; Offences against the Person; Malicious Injuries to Property; Forgery; Libel; Coinage Offences; Deer, Game, and Rabbits; Accessories and Abettors Bills.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he must state that he was not prepared for this proceeding of his noble and learned Friend. When these Bills were read a first time, he understood that they would be laid on the table this Session and considered, but that they could not be proceeded with till next Session. That seemed to him the most expedient course, for there might not only be consolidation but alteration of the Acts, and though no doubt they had been most skillfully prepared, still if there had been any
  1354
  alterations, they ought to be well considered. He had always been most hopeful with respect to the feasibility of effecting a consolidation of the statute law, but while that was the case, he thought such consolidation ought to be effected as a whole and not piecemeal; and, taking that view of the matter, he thought his noble and learned Friend would act wisely in deferring all legislation upon the subject until a future Session.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, he differed from his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice, with reference to the expediency of postponing legislation, upon the subject under discussion. He was of opinion that the Bills ought to be proceeded with during the present Session, inasmuch as the utmost pains had been taken by the Commissioners to reduce them to a satisfactory shape, and inasmuch as no advantage was likely to result from further delay.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHcalled attention to the 57th Clause of the Act for the punishment of offences against the person, for the purpose of urging upon their Lordships the expediency of amending the law regarding the punishment of rape. By the Act as it stood, the punishment was the same whether the offence had been committed by one or by more persons. He recollected when the Marquess of Normanby was Home Secretary, the Amendment of the law was under consideration, and he (the Marquess of Westmeath) had proposed, that inasmuch as the abominable offence of rape was greatly aggravated when committed by more persons than, one, and that frequently the unfortunate woman died from the violence committed under the former circumstances, that the punishment should be death when the offence was proved against two or more individuals. At present the sentence was transportation, whether the offence was committed by one or by several persons. He divided the House twice on the subject, but the proposition was rejected, though only by small majorities.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that as those Bills were simply to consolidate the existing law, the noble Marquess was out of order in raising this particular question.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he hoped that no alterations had been made in the Acts relating to the several subjects, inasmuch as by the form in which those Bills were now moved, it would be most inconvenient to discuss the merits of any altera-

  1355
  tions. He thought it was highly expedient that those consolidations should take place under separate headings. Their Lordships had better, then, accept those measures as consolidations, upon the assurance of the Government that no alterations had been made in the several Acts.
  The Bills were then severally read 2a.

SALE OF OBSCENE BOOKS, &c., PREVENTION BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in rising to move the third reading of this Bill, said, he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to a letter conveying information of a nature the most appalling in reference to the subject to which the Bill related. The letter to which he referred had been written by Mr. Pritchard, secretary to the Society for the Suppression of Vice, a gentleman of great intelligence and of high honour, who had been for many years most zealously engaged in the endeavour to suppress those publications against which he (Lord Campbell) asked their Lordships to legislate, Mr. Pritchard had written to him as follows:—
  "My Lord,—I have gone through the records of the prosecutions instituted by the society, for the sale or exposure of obscene publications, during the last fifty-five years. The total number during that period is 159, or within a very small fraction of three every year. Out of these 159 cases there have been but five acquittals, and the terms of imprisonment, varying from fourteen days to two years, average eight months each within six days and a-half. But in this calculation of the duration of the terms of imprisonment, no allowance is made for the circumstance that, in many of the earlier instances, to imprisonment was added the pillory, and, after the latter mode of punishment was given up, a fine. But it must always be borne in mind that the number of cases in which the society has prosecuted by no means represents the cases that have occurred. I may safely say that it has not been in one case in six brought under the society's notice in which they have been able to prosecute, chiefly from the heavy expenses attending a prosecution. I believe that one case in ten would be nearer to the truth, but I am anxious not to fall into any exaggeration. About the year 1834, there were no less than fifty-seven of these shops existing in London at one time, and no exertions that the society has been able to make have reduced these below from eighteen to twenty, which represents the number of shops that may be considered as permanently opened for this abominable traffic. It is also known that a system exists of sending out men from London, who periodically visit the different country towns, and attend the different fairs, races, and markets to circulate these abominations as their regular trade. One man died, not long since, while under imprisonment on a conviction obtain-
  1356
  ed by the society, who regularly visited the two Universities twice a year with a stock of highly-finished French prints far exceeding, if it be possible, the books that have generally been brought before the criminal courts. To show the immense stock of these things which the dealers have been able to collect, in the year 1845, from one dealer, who was permitted by the Central Criminal Court to retract his plea of 'Not Guilty,' and plead 'Guilty,' were taken no less than 12,346 prints, 393 books, 351 copper plates, 88 lithographic stones, and 33½ cwt. of letterpress. And from another, in the same year, 15,300 prints, 162 books, 1 cwt. of letterpress, 96 copper plates, 21 lithographic stones, and 114 lb. of stereotype. And within two years afterwards both of these men had again accumulated large stocks. Part of the stocks above enumerated were given up, and part the society was enabled to take under circumstances that cannot be expected to occur again. I may further mention that there are two men upon the society's list, one of whom has been prosecuted not fewer than nine times, and the other seven times. The truth is, that the trade is so lucrative that the dealers can well afford the risk of an occasional imprisonment. While their stocks are safe, their families can carry on their trade till their term of imprisonment expires, when they return to their old practices with increased experience of the modes by which the operation of the law may be eluded. And the only chance of success is to make this traffic a losing speculation."
  That was the present state of that abominable traffic, and he was afraid that there would be no means of checking it, unless a similar power was given to search for and seize those detestable publications as was given in the case of uncustomed goods, unlicensed printing places, and implements of gaming. All that he asked their Lordships to do was to grant a similar power, but with considerable modification to that which already existed in other cases. There was another subject to which he wished to refer before sitting down. He had been informed that on the second reading of the Bill he had been understood to make use of an expression of an insulting and offensive character to his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst). He could only say that, if such was the case, it was without any intention of doing so, and without being in the slightest degree aware that anything which he said could be construed as being offensive to his noble and learned Friend; if, however, he had inadvertently let fall anything which might possibly be so construed, he begged most fully and entirely to retract it, and to express regret that he had said anything which might bear such a construction. His noble and learned Friend on that occasion had done no more than his duty, and he had since then rendered material assistance in amending the

  1357
  Bill, and for that he begged leave to return thanks to his noble and learned Friend. There was one other subject to which he wished to refer. He had on a previous day referred to a book which he stated had been purchased at a railway station, and which contained a catalogue of a great number of most improper works for sale. Now, the Messrs. Smith, who had a contract for supplying books at all the principal railway stations of England, and who were persons of the very highest respectability, were naturally much hurt at the supposition that they should in any way be concerned in circulating that which was improper at any railway station, and he had received a letter informing him that the Messrs. Smith were at all times most sincerely anxious that no improper publication should be sold at any station at which they had any control. He could only add that to that statement he attached most perfect credence, from the high opinion which he entertained of the respectability of the Messrs. Smith.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that he ventured, the moment his noble and learned Friend produced that book, to say that it had never been sold by the authority of the Messrs. Smith. He knew those gentlemen very well, and he did not suppose that there were more unlikely persons in the world to assist in the circulation of such a publication. They had devoted much time to the examination of the subject, and undoubtedly they had been the means of diffusing throughout the country an immense body of the purest literature. Indeed, their collection was as pure as that contained in the most select library in the country. He was anxious to vindicate the reputation of the Messrs. Smith, whom he must characterise as truly Christian gentlemen, utterly incapable of doing an unworthy act.
  LORD LYNDHURST: As I have not been able to attend upon the various stages through which this Bill has passed, I wish to take this opportunity, now that it has arrived at its last stage, of offering a few observations with regard to it. Before doing so, however, I beg to acknowledge the full and proper manner in which my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, has atoned for what I considered to be most offensive words which he uttered with regard to myself on the second reading of this Bill. I did not hear those words myself, because I have the misfortune
  1358
  to labour under physical infirmity, but they were repeated to me by different friends, upon whose accuracy I most completely rely, and certainly they were of a most offensive nature. I apprehend, however, that my noble and learned Friend is not always aware of the effect of the expressions which he uses. My noble and learned Friend has been so accustomed to relate degrading anecdotes of his predecessors in office, that I am afraid his feelings upon those subjects have become somewhat blunted; and I am the more confirmed in that opinion from a circumstance which occurred not long ago. My noble and learned Friend, in a publication which he recently gave to the world, inserted two or three paragraphs of a nature by no means complimentary to myself, and having done so, he selects the particular volume containing those paragraphs from the whole set and sends it to me as a present, with the author's compliments. I conclude, therefore, that my noble and learned Friend does not, upon all occasions, understand the force of the expressions which he uses. Why, immediately after the division had taken place the other evening, my noble and learned Friend, after having uttered expressions with regard to myself more degrading to the utterer than to the person against whom they were directed, came over to me with a smiling face, and asked me to amend his Bill. I consented to do so, and suggested those Amendments which have since been introduced. I will now, however, say a few words upon the Bill itself, because certain misrepresentations have been made as to what I stated on the second reading. My principle objection to the Bill was, that it was so wide, so extensive, so loose, and so vague, that it would give rise to every kind of abuse; and I illustrated the vexation to which it might lead by several instances—I might have taken many stronger cases—which I submitted to the consideration of your Lordships; and I ended by saying, that no publisher, no print-seller, would be safe from vexation under this Bill as it then stood. I will give you a sample of its provisions. A man makes an affidavit that some one—he does not Bay who—has reason to suspect that there are improper publications at such a house. Upon that vague surmise a warrant is issued, the effect of which will be, that at any hour of the day, or any hour of the night, an officer may go into the house, search every room, every bedroom, even the beds in

  1359
  which women are lying, because they may conceal improper publications, break open, or order to be opened, every drawer and every closet in the house, and after all it may turn out that there is nothing to be found; but the householder will have no remedy for all this vexation. I am not saying that that is the Bill as it stands at present, but that was the Bill which the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench presented to your Lordships for your approbation; and then I was rebuked for opposing it. In the name of common sense could I do otherwise than oppose a Bill drawn in such a monstrous shape? But that is not all. That was the first clause of the Bill. According to the second no affidavit was required. The report of a mere superintendent of police that he believed there were improper publications in a house would give rise to all the vexation to which I have referred. Under these circumstances, I think I shall stand justified for having opposed the second rending of the Bill. My noble and learned Friend has repeatedly said, "Oh! these are not the objects I have in view," and in a kind of deprecatory tone, "I do not mean anything of the kind." Why, it is not what the Chief Justice means—but what is the construction of the Act of Parliament? The construction of the Act of Parliament is such as I have stated, and nobody can deny that it will lead, or may lead, to the vexation which I have described. Now, as to this question of vexation. It is said that no bookseller or printseller of respectability will ever have his premises opened and searched under a Bill of this description. Is that so? Some time ago there occurred a case of this description. A man named Hetherington published some low and blasphemous publications at a penny a-piece; he was tried, and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. When in prison, he employed one of his dependents to go about to the shops of different booksellers and see whether he could find anything that could be made the subject of a prosecution. This man went to the shops of a bookseller named Moxon, a publisher of great respectability; a bookseller named Otley; and a third whose name I do not remember. A short time before, the widow of Bysshe Shelley had published a new edition of his works, including all the pieces which he had written, some of them at the age of 18. Hetherington picked out some passages from these works and indicted Moxon,
  1360
  Otley, and the other person, for publishing and selling them. The indictment was removed by certiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench and tried before a special jury. Lord Denman, who presided, after very severely censuring the course which had been pursued, said that he must put this question to the jury, "Are these particular passages blasphemous libels or not?" The jury found that they were. Lord Denman imposed only a nominal penalty, but the prosecution was of the severest kind, because every one must know that an indictment preferred at the quarter sessions, removed by certiorari into the Queen's Bench and tried by a special jury, must operate as a very heavy punishment. I mention this case in order to show the necessity for so framing this Bill as to guard against vexatious proceedings. The Amendments which I suggested and which I drew were framed with that object and for that purpose. As the Bill originally stood, any person making an affidavit that there was reason to suspect, &c., laid the foundation for a warrant. I have now provided that the person shall swear that he has reason to believe, and that he does believe, that there are such publications in such a place, and shall further state to the magistrate the reasons which lead to that belief. Nor does it stop there. The most material Amendment is, that he must state what the publications are, and that they are of such a nature that, if published, the party publishing them will be guilty of a misdemeanour. The magistrate must also be satisfied that the case is a proper one for a prosecution, so that if indecent passages were taken out of such authors as Dryden or Pope, he would say, "Although these are very indecent passages, and ought never to have been inserted in these works, yet this is not a case for a prosecution." I hope, my lords, that I have justified the course which I pursued. I thought the-Bill badly constructed, and I opposed it on that account. I saw that it would lead to vexatious proceedings, and I stated why it would do so. When my noble and learned Friend asked me to amend the Bill, I amended it in that sense, not for the purpose of defeating the measure, but to guard against the evil of which I complained, with which the Bill in its original form was pregnant, and the existence of which everybody admitted. I am sorry to have detained your lordships with this explanation, but so many misapprehensions and misapplications of what fell from me

  1361
  have gone abroad, that I have felt as though I were upon my trial, and that I was imperatively called upon to justify myself. I hope the statement which I have made is perfectly satisfactory to your Lordships.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEadmitted that the Bill had been much improved by the Amendments which had been introduced into it, but he could not recognize the necessity for introducing a system of domiciliary visits, which had always been considered contrary to the principle and spirit of the law of England. It was necessary, he thought, if such provisions were made, that the magistrates should be enabled to judge of the necessity of the proceeding, and that not only the belief but the ground of the belief should be laid before them. He believed that the object of his noble and learned Friend might be fully attained by the augmentation of the punishment for publishing these libels. Having been for twenty-eight years concerned in the administration of justice, and never to his recollection having had a case of this kind before him either in London or on circuit, he had thought that the mischief was not of great extent. His noble and learned Friend had read a statement of what had been done during the last fifty-five years, and he could not help thinking that in the last case mentioned in it the prosecution had been attended with great success. He was therefore disposed to think that an augmentation of the punishment would be sufficient to put a stop to the business of selling these infamous publications. [Lord CAMPBELL said he had sentenced persons to two years' imprisonment.] He did not mean to blame his noble and learned Friend for the sentence which he had passed upon offenders, but he did not think that the common law had been allowed a fair chance of success. He should therefore be glad to assist his noble and learned Friend to make the law more severe. We could not return to the pillory, but why should not the sellers of these publications be imprisoned and flogged? He was most anxious to put a stop to this infamous traffic, but thought that that might be accomplished without the introduction of domiciliary visits, for which there was no precedent in the common law.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had been very much impressed with the difficulties which would be found to stand in the way of carrying this Bill into exe-
  1362
  cution when it was first introduced, and though he could not say that those difficulties were entirely removed by the Amendments which his noble and learned "Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) who had just left the House had introduced into it, still, after the information which the noble and learned lord who had charge of the Bill had read to the House of the great number of persons who had been prosecuted for this offence without any satisfactory result, they were bound to listen with great deference to any suggestion of his noble and learned Friend for an improvement of the law in this respect. As the Bill now stood, these search-warrants would only be granted after great precautions, and, considering that the offence was on the increase rather than on the decrease, it would be unwise not to pass this Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYwas understood to say that throughout he had felt the greatest anxiety for the fate of the Bill. He must confess that up to that evening he had fancied that a little misplaced sympathy on the part of some of their lordships had been evinced towards the publication of these obscene prints. His fears, however, on that point had now vanished. In conclusion, the right rev. Prelate tendered to Lord Campbell his thanks, and those of his right rev. Brethren, for his exertions in this cause.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he was highly gratified to find that the Bill was likely to pass through their Lordships' House, notwithstanding the opposition which was made to the second reading. He regretted exceedingly that, after what he conceived to be his ample apology to his noble and learned Friend, he should have thought it necessary to express himself in such harsh terms. His noble and learned Friend must have been misinformed as to what he had said upon a former occasion, for he was sure that he had made use of no expressions calculated to raise such feelings in his noble and learned Friend's most liberal and just mind. All that he had said upon that occasion was to assure his noble and learned Friend that, as he had talked with so much delight of certain works of Correggio and of the prints from them, there was nothing in this Bill which would disturb his enjoyment of them, and that he had not the slightest idea of saying anything which could be in the least degree offensive. With, regard to his noble and learned

  1363
  Friend's observations upon him as a biographer, he appealed to the public on that question, and that was not the place to raise a discussion upon it. He hoped his noble and learned Friend would find a chronicler who would justify every action of his life, and would prove him to have ever been a consistent politician. He trusted that the Bill would soon pass into law, and that the time would soon come when Holywell Street would become the abode of honest, industrious handicraftsmen, and a thoroughfare through which any modest woman might pass.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRIVILEGE OF REPORTS.

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE PRESENTED.
  LORD CAMPBELLlaid on the table the Report of the Select Committee which had been appointed to consider how far the privilege now given to reports of proceedings in the Courts of Law in newspapers might be extended to reports of the proceedings in the two Houses of Parliament, and in other public assemblies. The prayer of all the petitions laid before the Committee was substantially the same—namely, that there should be entire immunity to newspapers for printing and publishing anything whatever spoken at a public meeting. They heard the petitioners and their witnesses in support of that prayer; but the Committee came to the unanimous resolution that it was a prayer that could not be safely granted in the latitude in which it was sought, because a mob might be called a public meeting, and if a newspaper could lawfully publish whatever was said by any one member of that mob it would lead to the most mischievous consequences, for sedition might be spoken, and the most acrimonious attacks made upon private character. It was proposed by the petitioners also that the remedy should be against the speaker, and not in any instance against the journal; but that would in many instances leave the party calumniated without a remedy, because a man of straw might be put forward to say things to gratify the malice of some one who remained behind; and, as the law now stood, a speaker would in many cases be protected by taking refuge under the plea that he had made a privileged communication. No action would lie against a speaker for merely
  1364
  saying that a man was a liar or a scoundrel, or that a woman was unchaste; but when put into writing or published such language became actionable. Supposing a newspaper were to contain an account of a speech attacking private character, in which a man was called a liar, a coward, or a scoundrel, and it was circulated all over the world, to say that no action could be brought against the publisher of the journal would be to leave the person whose character was assailed without a remedy; for, as he had already said, no action lay against spoken words that merely amounted to general abuse. Parliament might, of course, make a speaker liable for a printed report of everything that was spoken by him, and thus take away all distinction between written and spoken, slander; but it would be a most important change in the law of England, and, as he believed, was wholly unnecessary. The committee thought that such a concession was unnecessary, and could not be safely granted to those who petitioned for it; but they at the same time believed that, with perfect safety to the public, there might be a protection granted against vexatious suits that did not now exist. A majority of the Committee were of opinion that a faithful report of the proceedings of either House of Parliament, when strangers were permitted to be present, should have the same privilege as a report of the proceedings of a court of justice. The majority thought that all the reasons which existed for giving that privilege to a faithful report of the proceedings of courts of justice extended to the two Houses of Parliament. It was equally important to the public that the proceedings in Parliament should be published, and that those who published them should not run the peril of an action or indictment. As to the Standing Orders forbidding the publication of the proceedings of either House of Parliament, it was hoped that these antiquated rules—which were, in fact, mere waste paper—would be speedily repealed as they were merely an impediment to that which was for the public interest. But the most important practical alteration proposed in the law for the protection of the public press was this:—At present, if a journal containing a faithful report of a meeting, called for a lawful purpose, contained anything against an individual, though he had sustained no damage whatever, he might bring an action, and if the case was proved, the Judge was bound to

  1365
  tell the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, and they were compelled to do so, giving, perhaps, a farthing damages. By a late Act of Parliament, which certainly; had checked this class of actions, the plaintiff could get no more costs than damages, so that a farthing damages only carried farthing costs; but then the defendant was burdened with his own costs. In the case of "Davidson v. Duncan," which had caused so much apprehension, though the jury, with the approbation of the Judge, found that the report was a faithful report of the proceedings of a public meeting, that there was no malice whatever, and that the plaintiff had suffered no damage, they were obliged to give a verdict for the plaintiff, which they did with a farthing damages; but the defendant was obliged to pay the costs of his own defence, which were said to be above £400. Now it was proposed that if an action was brought against a public journal for that which professed to be a report of a public meeting the defendant might plead that it was a faithful report, and that the plaintiff had sustained no actual damage; and if the jury should be of that opinion, then they could find a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff, instead of recovering damages or costs, would be obliged to pay all the costs of the vexatious action which he had brought. But the difficulty arose as to what should be considered a public meeting; and on this point the Committee were of opinion that public meetings should be those lawfully called by the sheriff of a county, or the mayor of a borough, for the purpose of petitioning the Queen or either House of Parliament, meetings of a town council, or board of health, or of any body acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament met to impose a rate, or to consider the local affairs of any district. These were public meetings, of which it was very important the localities in which they took place should be informed, and faithful reports of the proceedings of which should be protected; therefore the Committee came to the resolution that where a faithful report of the proceedings of such, a public meeting was given, and a plaintiff brought an action, having sustained no damage, the jury should find a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff be compelled to pay all costs. It would be in vain to think of legislating on such a subject as this during the present Session.
  1366
  He could not personally make the attempt as he was about to go on circuit; but he gave notice that at the beginning of another Session he would frame a Bill upon the Resolutions agreed to by the Committee, and submit it to their Lordships. He hoped the Bill would receive the approbation of that and the other House of Parliament and of the Queen, so that the class of vexatious actions to which he referred might never occur again.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till to-Morrow, Half past Ten o'clock.